Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Miners' Compensation Monitoring Group

Win Griffiths: When the Wales monitoring sub-group on compensatory payments for miners' respiratory diseases and vibration white finger last met; and what information on payments was provided to him at that meeting.

Don Touhig: The Wales monitoring group met on Monday to discuss progress on miners' compensation claims. A total of £437 million has been paid to miners and their widows under the two compensation schemes. In my hon. Friend's constituency, £6.4 million has been paid for chest diseases and £1.9 million for vibration white finger. That is a total of £8.4 million in compensation.

Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work in helping to ensure that miners and the widows and families of deceased miners receive all that they are due under the scheme. However, what unscrupulous advantage is being taken of the scheme by third parties, who take fees out of the compensation claims to the great disbenefit of miners and their families, who are entitled to that money?

Don Touhig: There have been instances of lawyers seeking to take money from miners and their widows after successfully obtaining compensation. The Law Society takes such matters seriously and, as a result of Government intervention, lawyers have paid back £60,000 to miners and their widows. The bigger problem, to which my hon. Friend has referred, is claims farmers—companies such as Industrial Diseases Compensation Ltd. As I said in the House on 9 June, those people are nothing but parasites who prey on elderly and vulnerable people. My message to them today is the same as it was then: the money is not yours; give it back to the miners and their widows.

Roger Williams: Although progress has been made on settling claims from miners and miners' families, there are still problems with surface workers who have worked in dusty and dangerous conditions, and miners who spent part of their working lives in small mines that were not covered by the National Coal Board. Will the Under-Secretary devote all his efforts to ensuring that those cases, too, are resolved?

Don Touhig: The solicitors have supplied information to the Department of Trade and Industry in support of claims for surface workers, but officials at the DTI feel that they need more information, especially about lead claims, if the matter is to be progressed. I hope that it will go before the judge at the hearing in October. The matter was discussed in the Wales monitoring group earlier this week, and I am conscious of the concerns of hon. Members of all parties about the matter.
	On small mines, solicitors have highlighted some of the difficulties in establishing the liability of an insurer of small and private mines. I have written to the Association of British Insurers, which has told me in writing that its members will continue to co-operate in every way to ensure that the claims are properly investigated and the compensation paid.

Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of third parties and parasites, will the Under-Secretary confirm that if the Liberals' policies to axe the DTI budget went ahead, there would be no money for compensation payments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Adam Price.

Adam Price: It has been estimated that, at the current rate of progress, the last case in the compensation scheme will not be settled until 2013—a full 15 years after the original judgment. Does the Minister believe that that is an acceptable timetable? Was the need for additional resources to speed up processing raised with him at the monitoring group meeting?

Don Touhig: I recognise that that is a serious issue. The scheme closed at the end of March. So far, 25,000 claims have been settled in Wales but more than 92,000 have been registered in total. In the four months before the scheme closed, 30,000 new claimants came forward. I hope that the discussions that are continuing between the solicitors' claimants group and the DTI to ascertain whether matters can be speeded up are successful. If so, the matter will go before the judge and I hope that, subsequently, we will run a scheme under which miners will have the option of either obtaining a fast-track decision or continuing to pursue their claim under the longer process. We are conscious of the need to ensure that resources are given to tackle the matter.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with the Education Minister in the National Assembly for Wales about the education maintenance allowance.

Peter Hain: We meet regularly.
	I welcome the introduction of the education maintenance allowance in Wales to tackle the drop-out rate at 16 and boost the aspirations of young people who would otherwise never consider staying on at school or college.

Andrew Robathan: Did the Secretary of State explain to the Education Minister how the people of Wales should understand that rather illogical position? On the one hand, the Government wish to bribe young people who are not motivated to remain in education to stay on at school through the payment of education maintenance allowance; on the other, they deter anybody but the richest children from going to university by introducing top-up fees, which may mean that students leave university with debts of perhaps £30,000. What is the logic of that?

Peter Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it better for youngsters to leave school at the age of 16. The pilots have shown that the staying-on rate has been increased by up to 6 per cent., and I would have thought that he would welcome the possibility of achieving a more highly skilled, and therefore more competitive, society in Wales, and of giving those youngsters more opportunities. On student finance, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Tory policy announced recently will result in students being plunged into massive debt. Graduates on low earnings could end up with a debt of £60,000 as a result of having a £10,000 loan. That would be the consequence of that punitive Tory policy.

Lembit �pik: The figures show that there has been a decline of 1.3 per cent. in the number of university applications among under-21-year-olds in Wales between last year and this year. Does the Minister accept that that is hardly a recommendation for his Government's student funding proposals for higher education? Crucially, will he give us a more direct answer than the one he gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) when he tried to explain away the evident contradiction involved in financially incentivising under-18-year-olds to stay on in education while charging over-18-year-olds tens of thousands of pounds to continue in higher education?

Peter Hain: The truth is that our policy is to encourage 16 to 19-year-olds to stay on in education in schools or colleges. That is in the interest of Wales. Our higher education policy will bring back grants of up to 2,700, which will benefit many thousands of students in Wales and provide a big incentive for people to go to university. We will also put in place a fair system for people to repay loans and fees over their working lifetime if they can afford to, and if they are in work.

Bill Wiggin: May I begin by paying tribute to Fusilier Stephen Jones, who lost his life in Iraq serving with the Royal Welch Fusiliers? I know that the Secretary of State will do everything he can to ensure that the Royal Welch Fusiliers' cap badge and traditions remain at this difficult time; they are doing a fantastic job. Our thoughts should be with the family of Fusilier Jones at this sad time.
	Nearer to home, we support this education policy, but my concern is that the colleges will not be there for the students to attend. Why is Neath Port Talbot college predicting a budget deficit of 880,000?

Peter Hain: Neath Port Talbot college has indeed hit a difficult time over the past year. However, it is now bringing its balances into line and moving forward, having made the necessary efficiency savings, which the new principal, Mark Darcy, is driving through with my support. The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that if his party were to come to power and he were to become Secretary of State for Wales, we would see massive cuts in education maintenance allowances and all the other provision and support that this Government have made for higher and further education students. That would be the consequence of the 1 billion cut in the Welsh budget planned by the Tories for the first two years of their term of office.

Bill Wiggin: I suggest that the Secretary of State focuses on his own policies rather than making up ours. Will he tell the House why Coleg Gwent is predicting that it will end the year with a deficit that threatens more than 30 jobs?

Peter Hain: Again, the efficiency savings being made by Coleg Gwent, some of which have been extremely painful, have been designed to bring the college's finances into balance. The truth is that further education is now getting record investment under Labour; the numbers of students in further education has been rising and the number of courses has been improving. We regard the role of FE colleges as essential and will continue to fund them generously, in contrast to the Tories, who plan to cut budgets right across the board.

Bill Wiggin: Thirteen out of 25 educational institutions in Wales are in debt to the tune of 3.5   million, so the money is not getting through. Seventy-five per cent. of college incomes come from Education and Learning Wales. Does the Secretary of State support the changes to ELWa that Rhodri Morgan has just brought about?

Peter Hain: I do. The decision to bring ELWa into a much more effective system of organisation was badly overdue, because it had been responsible for a number of failures. The improvements that both the First Minister and the Education Minister are introducing, in discussion with ELWa, will help to improve that situation. What the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the people of Wales, however, is how they would be short-changed under Tory plans to cut the Welsh budget by 1 billion in the first two years of a Conservative Government.

Llew Smith: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he just gave? He said that what was happening at Coleg Gwent relates to efficiency savings, but we all know that it involves sackings and the closure of two important departmentsengineering and cateringin one of the most deprived communities in Wales, Blaenau Gwent.

Peter Hain: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. He has spoken to me in detail about them and we have made representations in support. I want to see Gwent college continuing to provide a range of vocational opportunities, including in engineering, as will be the case. It is absolutely vital that whatever new plans the college management put in place provide for those much needed opportunities, which he rightly identifies.

Simon Thomas: Plaid Cymru welcomes the education maintenance allowance, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the young people of Wales on achieving such fantastic GCSE results, which put them at the threshold of further and higher education. Will he clarify what future those young people will have in 2006, both as regards top-up tuition fees and the changes in relation to A-levels and university entrance, which were announced in England yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? This is a good opportunity to clarify what will happen in Wales to those young people now receiving this allowance.

Peter Hain: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman's party supports the Government's policy, in one respect at least, of paying up to 30 a week to encourage youngsters to stay on in school and further education in Wales. That will help us to overcome one of the lowest rates of participation among 16-year-olds in the entire industrialised world. In respect of the review being introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on university admissions, a Welsh representative will be a member of the working party that takes that policy forward. The matter is out to consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in seeking to achieve a much more sensible way for students leaving school to find an opportunity to go to university than the hectic last-minute procedures that necessarily apply at the moment.

Education Funding

Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with his National Assembly colleagues concerning the impact of the spending review on capital funding projects in education in Wales.

Peter Hain: Under our Labour Government's spending review, Wales has had a generational step change in funding, and a huge investment in our future. The Assembly's budget will rise to almost 13.5 billion a year by 200708, and its capital budget will rise to almost 1.2 billion, massively enhancing the Assembly's ability to fund educational capital projects.

Betty Williams: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that such investment needs to be sustained, so that the children of Wales can be taught in an environment that they and their teachers should expect in the 21st century?

Peter Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, under the Chancellor's spending plans, which were announced only recently, we will see education capital budgets in Wales rising from around 100 million a year to 139 million a year over the next few years. That sustained investment will continue under Labour but would be at risk under the Tories. Indeed, in her constituency of Conwy, the replacement of three secondary schools, Ysgol John Bright in Llandudno, Ysgol Aberconwy and Ysgol Dyffryn Conwy, has recently been completed, and primary schools have all been modernised. That is an example of success in her constituency under Labour.

John Smith: When the Secretary of State next meets his colleagues in the Assembly, will he also discuss the spending review in relation to any decisions that may be taken by the Ministry of Defence, and the impact that that will have on the red dragon project and the economy of Wales?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not within the terms of the question.

Community Support Officers

Wayne David: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the deployment of additional community support officers and community wardens in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss matters affecting Wales. Currently, 122 community support officers are on patrol in Wales. An additional 46 officers have been secured for the four Welsh forces in the third round of Home Office funding.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know that community support officers are at the cutting edge, in Wales and elsewhere, of the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour. I welcome the fact that, before long, there will be 57 community support officers in Gwent alone. Does he agree, however, that to sustain that kind of support and intervention, continuing high levels of public expenditure are needed?

Don Touhig: Certainly, investment in fighting crime is important, and this Government are committed to that, with increases not just in community support officers but in police numbers. We are working closely in partnership with local government, too. In my hon. Friend's borough, which he and I jointly represent, I am sure that he will welcome the newly elected Labour council's decision to employ safety wardens, who will promote community safety and help to tackle crime in support of the work being done by the police. It is further evidence of Labour's commitment to overcome the problems of crime that we face in society.

Alan Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Newport Chief Superintendent Price is deploying individuals police officers to each ward to build a relationship with the local community? They will be supported by uniformed community support officers to give local residents additional reassurance, and to deter anyone minded to indulge in antisocial behaviour. Chief Superintendent Price is leading by example, being regularly out on the beat himself. Will my hon. Friend commend that strategy?

Don Touhig: I certainly will. I met Chief Superintendent Price only last week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that people do not just want to see the bobby on the beat; they want a strong, organised, uniformed presence back on our streets. I commend the commitment of Gwent police to the introduction of police ward managers, which will mean 66 extra bobbies on the beat. That, I think, will be welcomed throughout the country.

Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that community support officers could work very effectively with the youth service in trying to combat the problems of under-age drinking? It is a particular nuisance in my constituency, where a tremendous amount of litter, debris and glass is being left on the village green and playing fields. Could not an approach involving partnership and co-operation help to solve the problem?

Don Touhig: It could indeed. We are living in a time when there is a culture of binge drinking among young people, and for both social and health reasons it is important to tackle that. We need to collaborate with a whole spectrum of organisations, including the police, the health service, youth services and local authorities. The joined-up government that we need is taking place in Wales, where work is being done in partnership within particularour colleagues in the Welsh Assembly.
	I know of the difficulties that my hon. Friend is experiencing in his constituency, and of the hard work that he is doing to overcome them. I wish him well, and I hope that the success of his efforts in Monmouth pays him substantial dividends.

Fallen Sheep

Michael Fabricant: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on compensation to farmers for fallen sheep.

Don Touhig: No compensation is available to farmers for fallen sheep in Wales. However, a national fallen stock scheme has been set up to provide farmers with a means of disposing of their fallen stock. The scheme is due to be launched in autumn this year.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know that there are currently 25 outlets for disposal of fallen sheep in Wales, but does he also know that 20 of them are run by hunts? If the Hunting Bill is passed tonight, only five will be left. What will be the extra cost to farmers?

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In setting up the national scheme, we seek to tackle the problems throughout the country. Issues will arise from whatever the House decides later, but there is a free vote and I do not want to prejudge the result.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Minister agree with the farming unions in Wales that imposing a flat rate on the disposal of fallen stock would be far fairer than penalising those who live in more problematic, less accessible areas? What evaluation have the Government made of the huge likely increase in predation of lambs as a direct result of the ignorant move made by the Government today? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to come to order. The Chamber is very noisy. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Perhaps those who are cheering me will be quieter.

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's first point. Discussions have taken place, and the introduction of the national scheme this autumn is a result of joint efforts by Government and the farming industry. There will of course be transitional financial support during the first three years, which will help farmers who are currently having a difficult time.
	I also take the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I am not in a position to answer it at this stage. I will write to him.

Disabled People

Julie Morgan: What plans he has to help disabled people in Wales.

Peter Hain: Across Wales and England we are improving access for disabled people to services generally, and in particular conditions at work. From 1 October, employers and service providers will have new duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to remove inequalities.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the proposal to cut classes in Cardiff for disabled peoplenamely, adults with physical disabilities, acquired-brain injuries and mental health problems, and the hearing-impaired? Should those cuts not be reversed, and is it not an absolute disgrace that that is the first action of the newly elected Liberal Democrat council?

Peter Hain: I must say that I was horrified to hear of those cuts, and I agree that it is shameful that the Liberal Democrats have implemented that policy, especially given that their manifesto document, published this week, states:
	The Liberal Democrats would implement policies to deal with the pressing needs of the many disabled people living in our communities.
	It seems that this is yet another case of the Liberal Democrats promising one thing in order to get into office, and doing something quite different when they do soa point that the voters of Hartlepool will, I hope, bear in mind.

John Bercow: Having carefully considered the circumstances of people with disabilities in Wales, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what input he and his Department have had into the debate within government about the creation of a single equality Act?

Peter Hain: We of course made that contribution and discussed the matter with colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will know of the legislation that, subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, will introduce new rights for disabled people. I hope that he will support it.

Kevin Brennan: On the cuts in disabled services mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), is my right hon. Friend aware that they will also affect Rookwood hospital, in my constituency? Is it not particularly pernicious that the cuts were announced only in late July, yet the budgets for the courses ran from April? Does that not show that, when the Liberal Democrats actually get into power, they cannot be trusted?

Peter Hain: It certainly shows that one cannot trust the Liberal Democrats, whether they are campaigning to get into power or in power. Indeed, as I understand it, the service at Rookwood hospital to which my hon. Friend refers has helped for 30 years to rehabilitate disabled people. The fact that it is now being jeopardised by a Liberal Democrat council should give everybody pause for thought when considering voting Liberal Democrat in any elections to come.

Antisocial Behaviour

Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of South Wales police on antisocial behaviour.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the chief constables of all four Welsh police forces. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are determined that people should be able to live their lives free from intimidation and harassment.

Chris Bryant: I wonder whether the Minister noticed the recent comments of the chief constable of South Wales police, which seem to suggest that she is very hesitant about using all the powers now available to her to deal with antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister explain to her that the people of Maerdy and Treherbert are sick and tired of young people marauding around the town, and that they want the police to take every step available to them under these powers?

Don Touhig: The chief constable of South Wales police was right to highlight the wide range of powers in place to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are determined to crack down on those who make life a misery for working people. In March of this year the third set of powers in the 2003 Act came into force, thereby giving the police greater scope for combating antisocial behaviour. I have a simple message for the authorities about those new powers. Now that they have them, there is no excuse: use them. They have the toolsthey should now do the job.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I also commend the new chief constable for agreeing to attend a series of autumn meetings on antisocial behaviour in my constituency, at which, I am convinced, the message that these powers must be used will be rammed home. I ask the Minister to pay tribute to the work of the boys' and girls' clubs of Wales, which play an important role in tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour by providing youngsters with responsible spare-time leisure activities. Will he receive a delegation to discuss their work?

Don Touhig: I would be happy to meet such a delegation. It is important that we engage with young people in order to overcome the problem of antisocial behaviour in our communities, and I am pleased that police forces and local authorities are now actively promoting the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Indeed, in the year to 31 March there has been a 171 per cent. rise in the number of ASBOs issued, which is to be welcomed. As I said earlier, the tools are now there for the authorities to do the job. We expect them to use them, and to tackle the antisocial behaviour that is a plague in our society.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on devolving further powers to the Assembly.

Peter Hain: The First Minister and I have regular bilaterals to discuss a number of issues, including the report of the Richard commission and the devolution of further powers to Wales.

Anne McIntosh: What is the current thinking of the First Minister on the devolution of further powers to Wales, and is it the same as the right hon. Gentleman's?

Peter Hain: The answer is yes, and we are committed to a practical route map for better governance in Wales and increased and enhanced powers for the National Assembly for Wales, through consultation, as agreed unanimously at our Welsh Labour conference on Saturday by 300 delegates. That contrasts with the policy of the chair of the Welsh Conservative party, who wants the Assembly stripped of power, no doubt in preparation for a future under planet Redwood, which would see Wales being dragged back and powers taken back to the Tories.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Julie Morgan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a high number of pensioner households? What does he plan to do to help those pensioners, and in particular the one in four single women pensioners who live in poverty?

Tony Blair: We have a number of different measures that will help single women in retirement in particular. First, there is the extra money that we are giving through the pension credit; then there is the 200 fuel allowance; there is also the free television licence for those over 75; and there is the state second pension, which will help about 20 million low-income earners to get a better retirement income. We have continued to put a substantial amountabout 10 billion a year extrainto pensions, but we will not, as the Conservatives want us to, abolish the state second pension; and we will not abolish the pension credit, because it is helping many people to get relief from poverty.

Michael Howard: The justice gap is the difference between the number of crimes recorded and the number that result in the criminal being brought to justice. The Home Secretary says that this is the key measure of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and a crucial indicator of success in reducing crime. What has happened to the justice gap since the Prime Minister took office?

Tony Blair: The most effective measure of crime is the crime survey. Let me point out that, as opposed to the Conservatives, under whose tenure of office crime doubled, it has fallen 30 per cent. under us. The level of detection and conviction is important, but I understand from the Home Secretary that there has been an improvement of some 50,000 in the past year.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister is paid to discharge his constitutional responsibilities, and they include answering questions at the Dispatch Box. Now let me give him the answer that he was not prepared to give. I will tell him what has happened to the justice gap since he took office: it has got wider. Recorded crime is up by 825,000, but the number of cautions and convictions is down by 42,000, so under this Government there are more crimes but fewer criminals are being caught and convicted.
	Now let us look at another gap. Five years ago, the Prime Minister promised to stop incapacity benefit being an alternative to long-term unemployment or early retirement. What has happened to the number of people claiming that benefit since that promise?

Tony Blair: First, let me revert to the so-called justice gap for a moment. It is the case that during the time in which the Conservatives governed, crime doubled. It is also the case that, in the British crime survey, crime has fallen by 30 per cent. It is further the case that there are record numbers of police and they are now being supplemented by community support officers. This party in government has a better record on crime than the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party ever had.
	On incapacity benefit, I think that about 300,000 fewer people are coming on to it than when we took office.

Michael Howard: The question I asked was about the number of people claiming, which has gone up by 120,000. This week, the head of the Prime Minister's own antisocial behaviour unit said:
	I can think of countless families who are drinking or drug using with the money . . . the Government is giving them.
	That is what the head of his own unit said.
	Does the Prime Minister agree with another of his advisers, his former chief economic adviser, who said this week that under this Government, the regulatory burden has increased, the tax system has
	become more complicated and the tax burden
	is rising too?

Tony Blair: First, let me correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on incapacity benefit. It is true, of course, that the number of people claiming incapacity benefit trebled under the Conservatives. There are still many people on incapacity benefit today who came on to it before 1997. The question is how many are coming on to the benefit each year now as opposed to 1997and the numbers have declined by 30 per cent. I agree that there is still a lot more to do, which is precisely why we want to tighten up the gateway of people coming on to incapacity benefit. Let us be quite clear, however, that for a long period under the Conservatives incapacity benefit was the result of the way they shunted people off unemployment benefit to make sure that they never appeared in the official figures. So we will take no lessons from the Tories on incapacity benefit.
	As for the economy, let us compare the economy now with the economy when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office[Interruption.] He was a Cabinet Minister for 10 years. Under this Government we have the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest levels of unemployment for more than 30 years. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Employment Secretary, there were 1 million extra people on the dole. That is the difference between the two parties.

Michael Howard: Let me remind the Prime Minister about the question that I asked him. It was about the views of his former chief economic adviser, who said that the regulatory and tax burden had gone up. Let me give the Prime Minister a hint: his former chief economic adviser is right, which is why for the first time ever our national income per head is lower than that of the Republic of Ireland.
	In respect of the Prime Minister's NHS plan, four years ago the Government promised to tackle the problem of hospital cleanliness, so have the figures got better or worse?

Tony Blair: I have to return to the original point on the economy. Let me make it clear that the burden of tax is less than it was under most of the years of the previous Conservative Government, but it is true that we have increased national insurance to fund improvements in the national health service. We are proud of doing that; it is the right thing to do. It means that, for the first time, instead of health waiting lists going upthey were 400,000 under the Conservativesthey are 300,000 down under us.
	In respect of the other policy issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about, which I am afraid has just slipped my mind[Interruption.]

John Prescott: The economy.

Tony Blair: No, the economy was the issue before it. What was the last one? [Hon. Members: Hospital cleanliness.] Yes, that was it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that is a major issue. We accept that, which is why we are investing about 300 million extra in hospital cleanliness over the next couple of years. However, that real issue should not detract from the Government's record on the health service, where waiting lists have fallen, people are able to get access to health care far quicker and there have been record increases in the number of doctors and nurses. I agree that there is still more to do and that hospital cleanliness is one example of that. However, cutting investment in the national health servicewe should remember that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against all the extra investment for the NHSis not the answer.

Michael Howard: The problem of hospital cleanliness is rather an important one, and if the Prime Minister concentrated on answering the questions that I am putting to him, it would not have slipped his mind.
	The number of deaths from the MRSA superbug has actually doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Those who work in the NHS, including the chief executive, say that Government targets make matters worse. The National Audit Office says that more than one in 10 local hospital managers refuse to allow specialist teams to close wards to deal with those infections because of the Government's targets. Will the Prime Minister instruct his Health Secretary today to insist that the recommendations of infection teams are followed?

Tony Blair: First, the additional money that we are putting in will make a difference, and its effectiveness will be measured. The Leader of the Opposition talks about MRSA levels, but the proper computation of those levels has been available only under this Government. It is correct to say that we have more to do on this issue, but I do not believe that the answer is to get rid of Government targets. We are putting record investment into the health service and it is important that we demand outputs for it. That should not interfere with clinical judgment, but if we are putting the money in, it is important that we get the results out. That is what we are doing.

Michael Howard: I asked the Prime Minister to take specific action today to deal with this dreadful problem, but yet again all we have had from him is more talk. Crime is up, incapacity benefit is out of control, tax is rising, hospital infections are spreading and there is a crisis in pensions, but the Prime Minister's message to the people of this country is that his priority is to ban fox hunting. When will he get to grips with the problems that people really care about?

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman finally got to his point at the end. When people look at this Government's record, they will see a record on the economy that is strong, with the lowest rates of interest, inflation and unemployment for more than 25 or 30 years. They will see record levels of employment, rising living standards and record school results. The British crime survey shows not only that crime is falling but that we have record numbers of police. In respect of the NHS and education, people can see that the investment is working. This country is stronger, fairer and more prosperous than it was seven years ago, and I believe that that is one reason why people reject the Conservatives.

Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend review the application of the double jeopardy rule to our soldiers serving abroad? Surely it cannot be right for soldiers whose commanding officer has dismissed as unfounded the serious criminal charges that they faced to have those charges resurrected by the civilian authorities?

Tony Blair: The House will accept that we have to investigate allegations of abuse and, if necessary, prosecute them. We would also be subject to criticism if we did not do that but merely said that we would not take up the issue. I want to make one thing clear to my hon. Friend: the vast bulk of British soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere around the world do a magnificent job. They do not mistreat prisoners, but treat the local communities extremely well, which is why they are so popular as peacekeepers. Even so, where there is mistreatment, I am afraid that we have to investigate it.

Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the Prime Minister and the House are well aware of the outstanding contribution that the Gurkhas have made to the British armed forces over many generations. A relatively small number overall of Gurkha soldiers who complete their service in our armed forces here seek British citizenship. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that their right to be accorded citizenship is long overdue?

Tony Blair: As I think I said a week or two ago, we are examining this issue very carefully. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, but obviously we understand the strength of the case that is being made.

Charles Kennedy: As the UK chairman of the Gurkhas pointed out to me earlier this week, many of those who are seeking British citizenship would be a positive asset to our country both socially and economically, as they were in the armed forces. The Prime Minister is right to praise our armed forces, not only for the combat tasks they undertake but for their hurricane relief support work and their work saving lives during the floods in Cornwall this summer. Would not it be a great morale boost for the Gurkhas and for the armed forces as a whole if this much respected and decorated regiment were to be acknowledged in that way?

Tony Blair: Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Gurkhas on my own and the whole House's behalf for the fantastic work that they do. They are an integral part of the British Army, and we are proud to have them with us. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is not just the Gurkhas themselves, because the strength of that case is clear, but we simply have to examine what the consequences might be of agreeing to that case. We are doing that, and I shall be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks.

Keith Vaz: In February, Stephan Pakerra, a 14-year-old Leicester schoolboy, was brutally murdered by a 17-year-old with a claw hammer and a knife. There were more than 50 injuries to his body. The parents of the victim believe that the perpetrator of that savage attack was influenced by the video game Manhunt. Later today, there will be a meeting in Westminster to discuss video games and their effect on children. Will the Prime Minister ask the Home Secretary whether he will commission new research to look at a connection between video games and crimes of violence? Will he meet a delegation of concerned parents about the issue?

Tony Blair: I am obviously happy to meet any of my hon. Friend's constituents or people concerned about this issue, and the Home Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend has just said. I offer my deepest sympathy to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. I can also say, from what I have been told about this game, that it is obviously in no way suitable for children. In fact, the sale of the game to a person under 18 should be illegal. Responsible adults should have the right to watch and choose what games they play and films they see, but children need to be protected. We have Europe's strongest system for controlling the sale of computer games that are not suitable for children. It is run by the Video Standards Council, which applies the familiar British Board of Film Classification rating system. Given the prevalence of these games, however, this issue is worth looking at closely, and I shall certainly discuss with the Home Secretary how we can take matters forward.

Alex Salmond: Yesterday, the Prime Minister quite rightly told us that the planet was in danger and that we must generate much more power from renewable sources, yet Talisman Energy, which wants to develop the world's largest wind farm in the Moray firth, says that the greatest single threat to the viability of that project is the charges being proposed by Ofgem and the National Grid Company. Can the Prime Minister explain why it should cost 20 per kilowatt to connect to the grid in the north of Scotland, whereas anyone can be subsidised by 9 per kilowatt if they want a wind farm in central London[Interruption.] Though not the Prime Minister's hot air, perhaps. Will the Prime Minister intervene to join up the thinking of his Government on those matters?

Tony Blair: We are committed to increasing the amount of renewable energy. Obviously, wind will be a substantial source of that, particularly off shore. I do not know about the particular position that the hon. Gentleman asked about, and I can certainly look into it. I have to say that the Government's commitment over the past few years to renewable energy makes it clear that we are increasing the proportion of our energy needs that is met by renewables. We are making a substantial investment and will continue to do so.

Ross Cranston: May I take my right hon. Friend to the Government's alcohol strategy and to the important speech that he gave earlier in the year about binge drinking? This morning, my noble Friend Lord Mitchell and I hosted the launch of the charity NOFAS UKthe National Organisation on Fetal Alcohol Syndromeand its video for schools. Will my right hon. Friend lend his support to the video's message that if pregnant women binge-drink there is a serious danger to their children in the future? In particular, will he lend his support to the incorporation of the issue in the forthcoming public health White Paper?

Tony Blair: On the specific issue of foetal alcohol syndrome, we know that excessive drinking may affect the brain of a developing foetus. The evidence is absolutely clear, and I am sure that responsible women who are pregnant will take account of it. The forthcoming public health White Paper will build on the progress that we have made with the alcohol strategy. It will deal with this as a matter of public health, but, in addition, strong measures are now in place in relation to binge drinking and antisocial behaviour. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was saying a few minutes ago, the powers to deal with that exist, and we urge the police and local authorities to use them. On the specific issue of public health, we will deal more with it shortly when the Government's White Paper comes.

John Baron: The Prime Minister kindly met me earlier in the year to discuss the growing problem caused locally by Travellers buying greenbelt land and illegally developing it. However, the Government's recent responsethe 28-day temporary stop noticeis widely seen as a fudge, because all it does is postpone the problem and thereafter our inadequate planning laws kick in. Will the Prime Minister recognise that the Government's indecision on the issue is now causing increasing anger and threatens the peace and harmony of many local communities, for all concerned? Will he now re-examine my private Member's Bill, which proposed a fair solution to the problem and had good cross-party support, but was blocked by the Government without explanation?

Tony Blair: As I think I said to the hon. Gentleman when we met in February, I am basically sympathetic to the points that he makes. As he knows, we are undertaking a policy review on the position of Gypsies and Travellers, which we will publish shortly. My understanding is that the 28-day delay allows the local authority to take prompt action. I know that he disagrees with that and thinks that we need additional legal powers. I am happy to look at the question again and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but we think that the powers are validas I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said to the hon. Gentleman when we met. I entirely agree that it is a major issue in certain communitiesI know that from my own constituencyand it is important that the powers are in place to deal with it effectively. I will go back and have a look at the issue again, but it is worth pointing out that we have strengthened the law, and the advice we are receivingalthough I will check it carefullyis that the law is sufficiently strong to enable us to deal with the problem. I understand that it is an issue in some areas and I will look into it carefully myself.

Tom Levitt: This Sunday sees the first significant extension of open access land in England under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the establishment of a legal right to roam fulfils a Labour ambition that goes back many generations. Will he today send a message of solidarity and celebration to those who will gather in the Peak district in my constituency this weekend to celebrate the right to roam?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Act introduced a major new right for which people have campaigned for more than a century. By the end of December 2005, walkers will have new rights of access to some 3,200 sq miles of open country and registered common land in England. It is important to realise that the Act and the countryside code strike a proper balance between the rights of walkers and those of landowners. I hope and believe that matters can be resolved sensibly, so that people have access to more of our countryside, which they have wanted for many years, without interfering with the proper use of the land by its owners.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Yesterday, the Prime Minister told other countries to take seriously the threat of climate change, so why does he have a domestic energy policy that makes no sense and that will desecrate large areas of our country with unreliable wind turbines, which will not solve the problem? At the same time, nuclear power, which does make a positive contribution, will be allowed to wither away without replacement. Will he close the familiar gap between what he says and what he does, and get a domestic energy policy that measures up to the scale of his environmental rhetoric?

Tony Blair: It was this Government who played a major part in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, and we have also reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy, far from being an accidental part of our strategy, is a vital part of our ability to meet our targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is against it. We made it clear in the White Paper that we have not shut the door on nuclear power, but until the issues of cost and public concern about safety can be met there is simply not the consent to go ahead with it. That is why it is important that we continue to invest in new technologies, such as renewable energy. It is a perfectly coherent policy to say that we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy and greater energy efficiency are good ways to achieve that.

Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the arrest and detention in Jerusalem of my constituent, Hajira Qureshi, a student of mathematics at Cambridge university? No charges have been brought against Ms Qureshi or her two companions, yet they were subject to a raid of their hotel room at 3 am and were strip-searched. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Israeli authorities and protest about that unprovoked attack on British citizens?

Tony Blair: According to the Foreign Secretary, we are following that up, but of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are aware that three British nationals were arrested by Israeli authorities; they have been seen by our consular authorities who are providing all the assistance they can. I understand that they were subsequently released from custody. We have raised the matter with the chief of police in Jerusalem and we shall continue to pursue it with the Israeli authorities. At this stage, that is all I can say to my hon. Friend.

Andrew Turner: Although the Isle of Wight is one of Britain's prime tomato producers, it is hard to find island tomatoes in local supermarkets, yet I can buy mangetout from Sierra Leone. It costs the same to get a beef carcase to a wholesaler from Argentina as it does from parts of Britain. What is the Prime Minister doing to cut food miles?

Tony Blair: For some reason, the mangetout section has been left out of my brief and I apologise for that. To be absolutely frank, I do not know, so I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subjectbut I am sure that we are doing something.

Cross-departmental Working

Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on the impact of cross-departmental working on the Government since 1997.

Tony Blair: All Departments work closely together to ensure the co-ordination of policy. Cross-departmental working and its impact is most noticeable in areas such as crime and asylum and in relation to public health, where we need to bring a whole series of Departments together to work in a constructive and co-operative way.

Graham Allen: The Prime Minister will know that Nottingham, North, especially its outer estates, is one of the poorest UK constituencies, but excellent cross-departmental working has helped to tackle some of the problemsthe new deal, Sure Start and the building schools for the future programme. However, there are now 36 funding streams coming into Nottingham, North and 20 organisations involved in regeneration. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in trying to cut through and clarify the plethora of bodies and initials, which confuse local people, so that regeneration can be done not to, but with, the people who are its subject?

Tony Blair: The point my hon. Friend raises is correct. Indeed, I am already taking an interest in, and have held several meetings on, the subject. Most people recognise that the money going into communities through the new deal, Sure Start and elsewhere is making a real difference to some of the poorest communities in our country, but it is true that there is a plethora of funding streams, which causes unnecessary difficulty and bureaucracy. The new local area agreements, which merge various funding streams locally to support the delivery of agreed outcomes, will be taken forward. I hope that in that area, too, we can learn from experience to ensure that people are accountable for the money we spend while also ensuring that they get it more effectively and quickly than they do at the moment. I would say one final thing to my hon. Friend: the other day, when I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), I saw the work that inner-city regeneration is doing with not just the support of local people but their active involvement, and that is a programme of which we can be very proud.

Engagements

Laurence Robertson: On the topic of urban regeneration, is the Prime Minister aware that in my constituency there are proposals to close three urban post offices? In two of those areas, the nearest post office is more than a mile away, and in one of the areas there are plans to build hundreds more houses, all of which will increase car journeys, yet only yesterday the Prime Minister said that he was concerned about the emission of poisonous gases into the atmosphere. How does he square his policy of closing post offices with his alleged concern for the environment?

Tony Blair: It is not that we have a policy of closing post offices. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Government, about 3,000 post offices closed. Post offices have continued to close under this Government, because their business and financial viability is being altered as a result of more people getting their benefit not through the post office but through their bank account. We have set aside several hundred million pounds to support rural post offices, but in the end we cannot support every post office, no matter what its financial viability is. That is why we have substantial investment going in, but there is no point in kidding people; unless we double or treble that investment we cannot keep every post office open.

Clive Efford: May I inform my right hon. Friend that, this week, we will be celebrating the fact that the 1,000th home on the Middle Park estate in Eltham will be improved under the decent homes programme? Although we are justifiably proud of our investment in decent homes, there still remains a problem in my area with young families who cannot find affordable homes. Those people have grown up in houses that were built by Labour, and they look to Labour to provide for them and their families. May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to allow local authorities once again to build council houses using their investment allowance?

Tony Blair: First, the point that my hon. Friend raises is correct. There is obviously a real issue to do particularly with younger people wanting to get their feet on the rungs of housing ownership and being unable to do so, and we hope that we can address that over the next few weeks. There is also a need for greater social housing, and we are putting additional resourcesbillions of poundsinto that. He is also right in saying that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of social homes that do not meet the decency minimum threshold, and we have reduced that by 1.6 million homes in this country over the past few years, but we will put more investment and resource into it. I agree that one part of that must be social housing, which can come from a variety of sources. Over the next few years, we are supporting housing for up to 12,000 key workers in London. That will make a substantial difference not just to housing but to the quality of people who can come into our public services.

BILL PRESENTED

Legislation (Memoranda of European Derivation)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Angela Browning, Sir Peter Tapsell, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, presented a Bill to require a Minister of the Crown, the National Assembly for Wales, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Scottish Minister in respect of any primary or subordinate legislation which gives effect to any European Community treaty, obligation or instrument to publish a memorandum specifying the relevant European Community treaty, obligation or instrument from which it is derived and identifying which provisions in the legislation are so derived: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 155].

Desecration of National Flags

Angela Browning: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a criminal offence of desecrating national flags; to establish penalties in relation to the offence; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill was promoted by the letters that I received from my constituency and elsewhere following scenes of the burning of our Union flag on the streets of London earlier this year. National flagsthe emblem of a nation statedo not belong to, or represent, a Government or a policy; they belong to all of us. Most people have a sense of possession and belonging whether they were born in a country or whether it becomes their adoptive home. They identify with their flags, often with pride, as we saw in Athens at the Olympic games.
	Love of country and the symbols of nationhood are deemed by some today to be politically incorrect. I do not share that view. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I empathise with those who find it grossly offensive to see our flag desecrated, as defined by the dictionary as
	to violate the sacred character of an object.
	Even more so, that inflames anger when there appears to be no redress. Such actions in a public place not only offend; in some instances, they incite racial hatred and can lead to violence.
	In studying how other countries have approached the problem, I find that many other countries have enacted legislation to include penalties of both fines and imprisonment. Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and India have all enacted such legislation, and some countries, such as Norway and Japan, have legislated specifically in respect of foreign flags, knowing how offensive it is if those flags are destroyed in their countries.
	The Bill does not seek to trivialise the use of the flag where it has been adapted, for example, in the design of garments. I have received a certain amount of correspondence about the use of the flag in underwear design, and I want to make it clear to the House that the Bill does not seek to prohibit that sort of fun. Nor would I oppose the Union flag being incorporated in advertising or projected on the front of Buckingham palace, as we have seen in the past.
	The Bill is a direct response to the silent majority who expect action to be taken when acts of desecration take place. Last Sunday, the Sunday Express carried out a telephone poll to find out what its readers thought about the act of burning the Union flag and whether they thought that that should be made a criminal act. I was pleased that 1,096 people spent their own money to respond to that poll and that 98 per cent. said that there should be such legislation. Additionally, such a measure would have the support of the Victoria Cross Society.
	I am only too well aware of the limitations of a ten-minute Bill, so although I hope that mine will proceed, I am perhaps more realistically addressing the Government Front Bench in the hope that time will be found to include such a provision in a Home Office Bill. If the Government fail to do that, I hope that my Front Bench, when we come to office after the next general election, will include the measure in an early Home Office Bill.

Evan Harris: I had not intended to speak until I heard what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. It would not be right for the House to allow a Bill that would restrict freedom of expression and free speech to pass unchallenged.
	I accept that many people are offended when they see the burningor what they describe as the desecrationof the national flag, and I agree with the hon. Lady that using and supporting the flag should not be seen as politically incorrect, whether that is in the context of sporting occasions or supporting the nation. I also accept that a flag is the emblem of a national state and that it belongs not to the Government but to all of us. However, she paid no attention to the requirement that the House and country should have to recognise that freedom of speech and expression should be allowed as long as other people are not damaged. People in this country must accept that others will have opinions and ways of expressing those opinions that may insult them, so it is wrong to use words such as desecration and to consider things to be sacred in such a way as to criminalise freedom of expression.
	There is a tradition of burning flags as an expression of disgustsometimes outright disgustat something that is done in one's name by one's country. I would not use that method because I appreciate how insulting it can be, but nevertheless other people choose to. Short of covering the act under considerations of public order and burning in general, it should not be made a criminal offence, so I urge the House to oppose the Bill.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Chope, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Dame Marion Roe, Mr. Andrew Rosindell and Angela Watkinson.

Desecration Of National Flags

Mrs. Angela Browning accordingly presented a Bill to establish a criminal offence of desecrating national flags; to establish penalties in relation to the offence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 156].

Hunting Bill (Procedure)

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the Hunting Bill
	1. Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	2. At the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading
	(1) the Bill shall be treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment, and
	(2) the House shall proceed to consider any Motion standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 for a suggested amendment to the Bill.
	3. Proceedings on that Motion shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, three hours after their commencement (for which purpose the Speaker shall put only the Question on any amendment of the Motion selected by him and the Question on the Motion).
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading
	(1) may be taken immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion mentioned in paragraphs 2(2) and 3, and
	(2) shall be brought to a conclusion half an hour after their commencement.
	5. No motion may be made to recommit the Bill.
	6. In relation to the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 above
	(1) Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply,
	(2) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,
	(3) the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply,
	(4) the proceedings shall not be interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (and any such Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of such of the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 as are to be taken at the sitting concerned),
	(5) no dilatory motion may be made except by a Minister of the Crown,
	(6) the Question on any dilatory motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith, and
	(7) if the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended during the course of the proceedings, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown at the next sitting of the House varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	7. The Question on any Motion varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (whether by making provision about Lords messages or otherwise) shall be put forthwith.
	I shall be extremely brief because I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to use the time available to discuss the substantive issues. The procedure motion gives reasonable time for debate on an issue that has been before the House many, many times. Indeed, one is tempted to say that everything that could be said has been said on many occasions. It is, in addition, the same Bill that came before the House last year, when it was debated extensively. Later in the process, there will be a debate on the sensible proposition on commencement.

Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 it is possible to suggest amendments to improve the Bill. No time is allowed for any such suggestion motions, except for the Minister's suggested amendments. Is not it wrong in those circumstances to say that there is adequate time for debate?

Alun Michael: Not at all. There was plenty of opportunity for positive acts of amendment in two placesfirst, in this House, when it was last before us and, secondly, in another place, when it had the opportunity, which it did not fully take, to amend, debate and improve the Bill and return it to this House. I am absolutely clear that there has been plenty of opportunity to consider all the issues and plenty of opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce amendments and suggest improvements. I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's implication.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords did not complete its consideration of the Bill because it was effectively withdrawn by the Government before all the amendments could be discussed?

Alun Michael: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely and completely wrong. The House of Lords failed to complete its consideration of the Bill. It failed to use the time that the Government made available and to take advantage of a series of options for additional time. Debate on the Bill ceased as a result of an Opposition Chief WhipI believe it was the Liberal Democrat Chief Whipmoving that the debate should end. The Government were prepared to give more time for debate, but the forces that wish to prevent the Bill's progress unfortunately did not take the time available to them in the House of Lords. This House, in contrast, has been quick to make full use of every minute of time made available to it on many occasions, and this motion deals with the timing of debates in this House.

Roger Williams: At the end of an interesting week in Parliament, it seems that the British people will be able to beat their children but not chase a fox. Does the Minister think that the Government have got the balance right?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's flippant approach to both issues is rather sad. He will know as well as I do that issues such as education, getting young people into jobs and strengthening the economy, and large issues of health and the environment, which the Prime Minister addressed in an excellent speech yesterday, are the Government's priorities. This issue has been taking up parliamentary time year after year, and it must be brought to a conclusion. At the time of the last general election, we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have also made it clear that we would prefer those on the Opposition Benches and in another place to address the legislation before them, to seek to improve it and to argue the issues rather than to frustrate the will of this House, which has been reinforced on occasion after occasion.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I see that there is a queue.

David Burnside: Does the Minister agree that the only reason the Bill is before us is that we are in the run-up to an election and the Government want to placate the left wing of the Labour party? It has nothing to do with the issue and the Bill will not bring the matter to a conclusion. Why do the Government not bring it to a conclusion by making it an election issue rather than delaying it for two years?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to point out that this was an election issue: we said in our manifesto that we would enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have been an extremely patient Government because we have tried to bring people together and get them to listen to each other, and to find ways forward that are less divisive than those of the two, very shrill, extremes in the debate. I personally have invested an enormous amount of time in that, and it has been worth while; I do not regret it. However, it has become clear that the views are so polarised that it is impossible to deal with the issue in that way, and the House of Lords failed to take the opportunity to improve the Bill and return it to us, so I tell the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely wrong.

Ann Widdecombe: Does the Minister agreehe probably does notthat the Prime Minister has quite cynically manipulated this issue throughout two Parliaments? The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am on his side on the main issue: I shall vote for a hunting ban. However, it was not just before the last election that that pledge was made. Before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister undertook to provide a free vote followed by legislation if Parliament voted for a ban. What has he been doing in the last seven years to fulfil that promise, except to delay and then revive the issue every time it suited him electorally?

Alun Michael: I welcome the right hon. Lady's support for the substantive motion today, but I do not think that playing to her colleagues with that bit of populism will win her back support in the Conservative party. As for her question, I disagree with her passionately, as she knows. In the 1997 general election we promised a free vote in the House followed by legislation. We had the free vote; we had the Burns report; and we had the legislation, which did not succeed in its passage through Parliament. At the last general election we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. We have tried to do that by consensus, by discussion, by agreement and by common sense. That did not succeed. When we debated the Bill that I introduced, I did not noticeably have support from those who are shrill today. At the end of the day, this House voted, by a large majority, for a ban on hunting. I seek to facilitate further debate on that proposition today, so that we can send the Bill to the House of Lords and ensure that we reach a conclusion on the issue. That is what we promised in our manifesto and, as usual, we intend to deliver.

Lembit �pik: I accept that the Minister has spent a great deal of time consulting various groups. On procedure, however, does he accept that those of us who actively participated in that consultation with him and others are frustrated that measures such as compensation, which everyone agreed was important, cannot be put into the Bill if we do not have a mechanism to discuss such amendments? How does the Minister intend to fill the many holes in the Bill that, I suspect, mean that it will be unable to achieve its intended purpose?

Alun Michael: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman as one who has been willing to invest an immense amount of time talking to those who take a different view from him. He does credit to the House in the way he has engaged in that. He and I do not always agree but there can be no doubting his commitment to try to argue issues through and reach a conclusion.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alun Michael: In a moment. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for additional time to discuss compensation. We dealt with the matter in earlier debates, and we do not believe that there are any grounds for compensation. Human rights issues were examined in great detail by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It raised only one narrow point, which we have examined carefully as a result of its findings. I am absolutely convinced that both on human rights and on compensation there is no need for further change to the Billit stands as it is drafted.

Adrian Flook: rose

John Greenway: rose

Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) first.

Barry Sheerman: Let me just nail this point: we said in the 1997 manifesto that we would provide an opportunity for a vote in Parliament. I do not think that there was anything about using the Parliament Act if we could not get the House of Lords to agree. This is hardly the issue on which to use the Parliament Act, which is hardly ever used, not only to overrule the House of Lords but to steamroller the Bill through this House against a very large minority who do not want it.

Alun Michael: I interpret that in a slightly different way, and I say to my hon. Friend that this is not an appropriate issue on which the House of Lords should provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The House of Lords should engage with the Bill, amend it, seek to improve it and send it back to this House for the normal procedure of reconciliation between the two Houses. If that is what he meant, I agree with him. I do not think, though, that it would be right for this House to say, The House of Lords doesn't want itthat's all right, we'll just roll over and leave it, then. That could not be right.

John Greenway: The Bill that the Minister introduced to Parliament last year did at least provide the opportunity for hunting with dogs to continue in upland areas such as the North York Moors national park. Why has he changed his mind, given that he thought that that was so important? It cannot simply be that a majority of his Back Benchers think that it is wrong, because he pleaded with them to go ahead with that scheme.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Bill did not give the opportunity for hunting in upland areas. It gave the opportunity for those who believed that they could undertake an activity of dealing with vermin through hunting in a way that was less cruel than all the alternatives to go before a tribunal to put that evidence forward. Although I do not believe that there would have been many cases in which they succeeded, providing that opportunity would have made sense. Howeverperhaps the hon. Gentleman failed to noticethe House voted not to create that tribunal system. The exceptions to the ban on hunting are included in the Billratting, for instance, where the alternatives, such as poisoning, are particularly unacceptable. The difference is marginal: what matters is what is in the Bill.

Adrian Flook: As the Minister knows, I have raised the issue of West Somerset, particularly Exmoor, many times. In that part of the country, hunting is not only a way of life but an integral part of the way in which the economy works. The economic impact of a direct ban would be at least 5 million and the employment impact would be 420 jobs. The indirect impact would be a further 600 jobs. That comes from an authoritative study by West Somerset district council. What will happen to that area, and why cannot we discuss that in relation to the Bill?

Alun Michael: I remind the hon. Gentleman that substantive issues will be debated on Second Reading. Briefly, so that I do not trespass beyond the bounds of the debate, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at issues involved in hunting in the west country and the claims that it is important to the local culture or to the future of the deer population. I do understand the depth of feeling in certain parts of that area. There is no justification, however, for suggesting that hunting is necessary or that it is not a method of dealing with the deer population that is anything other than cruel. I therefore see no reason for extended debate on that particular issue.
	As for the economic impact, the Burns report demonstrated that the economic impact of a ban on hunting would be extremely limited, and the evidence given in Portcullis House suggested that it would be even less than that. In view of the buoyancy of the rural economy, that issue does not require extensive further debate.

Dennis Skinner: In the course of the past few minutes, my right hon. Friend has been subject to a barrage from Members whingeing and whining and wanting to rerun the principle. The truth is that for 18 years, when I was in opposition, I lost, because that was democracy. We were in the minority, and we had to take it on the chin. There are people now in this House not capable of understanding that the numbers are against them. I hope that my right hon. Friend is able to complete what he has to say, get on with the job, and tell the House of Lords to go to hell and that we will carry this Bill.

Alun Michael: Instead of being impolite to those in another place, I invite them to debate the Bill that we send to them. Apart from that, my hon. Friend makes many good points. Those who suggest that there is any justification for violence or protest as a result of the Bill's going through should certainly listen to his comments. As democrats we have to respect the majority.

Simon Thomas: The Minister may recall that I supported his last Bill because I thought that it at least took science and ecology as its founding principles and had a method of dealing with those areas, particularly upland areas, where I am convinced that a decent argument has been made that hunting with hounds has ecological and environmental, as well as animal welfare considerations. This is the first time that the House has debated the Bill as a Government Bill from start to finish, and to do so in this truncated way pays great disservice, whatever the decision at the end of the day, to the House and to Members who have spent their time and effort in consultation with their constituents.

Alun Michael: First, the Bill that I drafted and introduced would have given the opportunity for hunting with dogs not on ecological grounds, but on the grounds that there was a necessity for a particular activity for the control of vermin and so on, and that the proposed method would be less cruel than any of the alternatives. The case for the ecological argument has not been made in the evidence that I have heard: it does not apply as it does in relation to shooting sports, for instance.
	Secondly, this is the same Bill that I introduced and that the House passed on the last occasion. I still think that it included some rather good ideas. It was debated fully and the House took its decision and voted. The hon. Gentleman should, like me, respect democracy and the conclusion of the debate in this House.

Andrew Robathan: The Minister describes himself as a democrat, as do I. Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), is he not therefore a little embarrassed, even a little ashamed, at this abuse of the parliamentary process and misuse of the Parliament Acts merely to satisfy the prejudice and bigotry of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be embarrassed that so many of his hon. Friends are here. They say that this is a trivial issue, then they all pile into the Chamber to debate it. If we had a debate immediately afterwards on education or health, they would disappear, as they usually do. There is no abuse of the processes of the House and I have nothing to be embarrassed about. I am pleased to be able to bring this Bill before us so that the House can fulfil our promise to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman characterises democracy as respecting majorities, and of course that is partly right. Does he accept, however, that another element of democracy is to respect the rights of minorities, and that that is being disregarded in this case?

Alun Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: that is why the Government have spent so much time listening to those minorities[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must calm down.

Alun Michael: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, this is an issue on which very few Members appear able to be calm.
	Respect for minorities involves listening to them and deciding whether they have an argument, then, in this case, considering the central issue of whether the activities that they are undertaking are cruel, unnecessary or involve a minimum of suffering. Those are the issues on which I hope hon. Members will take their decisions in voting on the propositions in the Bill.

Hugo Swire: In order that there can be no perceived, or real, abuse of the House during this afternoon's deliberations, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on those who have benefited from support, financial or otherwise, from campaigning organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and those who have indirectly benefited from its 1 million bung to the Labour party, should say so at the outset of proceedings?

Alun Michael: We could have an interesting discussion about the sources of Conservative party financial support. Any financial support given to the Labour party because Labour Members believe in, support and work for animal welfare would be provided only in a proper, declared manner. There should be no perception of abuse of the processes of the House. The hon. Gentleman does neither himself nor the House any credit by making such a suggestion.

Tony Banks: The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is about to leave the Chamber, which is unfortunate. Although the International Fund for Animal Welfare gave 1 million to the Labour party, it also gave considerable amounts to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.
	The procedure motion will facilitate proper debate and a conclusion on the divisive issue. I commend it to the House.

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to set the record straight. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggested that I was leaving the Chamber but I was not. I was merely moving to take my place as the Whip on duty, from which I shall be allowed to witness two and a half hours of hypocrisy, cant and prejudice.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw the word hypocrisy.

Hugo Swire: I withdraw that particular word unreservedly.

Mr. Speaker: It has been noted that the hon. Gentleman is remaining in the Chamber.
	Before I call the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I remind hon. Members that the selection of amendments has been placed in the No Lobby in the usual way.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 4, leave out from after to end of paragraph and insert their commencement.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: (n), in line 10, leave out from any to under in line 11 and insert Motions.
	(o), in line 11, leave out a suggested amendment and insert suggested amendments.
	(p), in line 13, leave out that Motion and insert those Motions.
	(q), in line 19, leave out Motion and insert Motions.
	(d), in line 20, leave out half an and insert one.

Oliver Heald: It is worth mentioning for hon. Members' convenience that we are most anxious to divide not only on amendment (a) but on amendment (n), which raises a different issue.
	The procedure motion involves a massive use of Executive power to crush an aspect of freedom in rural communities. The Leader of House, in whose name the motion stands, would allow the passing of the Bill today, but only through guillotining debate and disposing of the Committee and Report stages. He would also ensure that only the Government amendment on when the ban comes into force could go to the other place. No other amendments, many of which appear on the Order Paper, would even be debated, despite the support of many hon. Members in all parties.
	The thinking behind the procedure motion is doubtless to ensure that the Bill leaves us, as the Minister said, in exactly the same state as the previous measure, accompanied by an amendment providing for a delay, to comply with the Parliament Act.
	We oppose the procedure motion because even if the strict statutory conditions for the Parliament Act are fulfilled, the circumstances do not warrant the use of our most draconian procedures. If we are to maintain our right to debate in this place, the guillotine should be used sparingly and the Parliament Act reserved for rare circumstances in which there is no other way forward. The Parliament Act has been used when legislation is of high or constitutional importance, when there is genuine urgency and when the other place is clearly unreasonably blocking the will of the elected House.

Tony Banks: Is not that exactly what the House of peers is doing at the moment? How can the will of this House be fulfilled if the House of Lords continually blocks it? Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a House of Commons man, should defend our procedures.

Oliver Heald: Yes, we should defence our procedures, but the Bill is not a case for a strict guillotine or the Parliament Act.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend sets out the arguments for not invoking the Parliament Act, but a further consideration exists. Parliamentary majorities should not be used to suppress the rights of minorities. The House of Lords has an important role in safeguarding those rights. It was doing its duty and we should not override it.

Oliver Heald: Yes, and it is also right that the Government should not use their Executive power to effect that sort of oppression of a minority.
	The Government have not known their own mind about the Bill. For the past seven long years, they have started and checked, jinked and dived and been up hill and down dale. At the end of seven years and after wasting seven months of the Session, they say that the Bill is so important that it must be tackled now. According to newspaper reports, the Government would even be prepared to sacrifice three significant Billsthe Pensions Bill, the Children Bill and the Civil Contingencies Billto secure the measure. What a shocking sense of priorities that displays.
	The Pensions Bill is designed to help protect the pensions of millions; the Civil Contingencies Bill is our long-delayed response to the events of 9/11; and the Children Bill deals with the needs of some of our most vulnerable children. I do not agree with some aspects of those measures, but I have no doubt that their subject matter is far more important than hunting.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman's assertions about the use of the Parliament Act in the past are untrue. The age of consent was not an urgent constitutional issue that required the use of the Parliament Act. That also applies to the War Crimes Bill, for which the Conservative Government used the Parliament Act. People advance the belief that we should not use the Parliament Act when there is a free vote. I believe that we should be able to use it in the case of a free vote because that reflects the unfettered will of the House, unconstrained by any Whip.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I want to consider urgency, because the current circumstances do not warrant the use of the Parliament Act. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the War Crimes Bill. Ministers at the time said that that was urgent because the victims and witnesses were old and might die before they could give evidence. In the case of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it was said that no time could be lost because the new election system had to be introduced by a specific date. When the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was considered, the Government claimed that the need to respond to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights meant that there could be no delay.

Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that several of us were deeply unhappy about the use of the Parliament Act in all those cases? Several Conservative Members voted against the War Crimes Bill and believed that that was an improper use of the Parliament Act. If that constituted improper use, surely that is magnified 100 times in the current circumstances.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He cherishes the important principles on which the House operates its conventions. He is right that we should be sparing indeed in our use of the Parliament Act.

Anne McIntosh: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality had spent more time on his so-called concern about cruelty by allowing pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in the same way as the Government are allowing such scrutiny of the Animal Welfare Bill, or even enabling that measure to consider aspects of hunting, shooting and fishing, we would have been spared any resort to the Parliament Act?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Of course, the Minister does not support the Bill in its current form. The Bill that he supported was considered last year but he was ambushed on Report. That is why we are here now.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm for the benefit of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the previous Bill was considered in Committee at great length? Almost every argument that could be made was discussed. The House has spent an enormous amount of time on the Bill. Rather than rushing to resort to the provocation of the Parliament Act, the Government have been slow to do so because we did not want to do it. Will he therefore join me in urging the other place to engage properly with the Bill when we send it on instead of rejecting the will of the House of Commons?

Oliver Heald: Let us get to the nub of the question of urgency. How can we say that this Bill is as urgent as the other Bills on which the Parliament Acts were used, when the Government themselves say, Oh, we don't need to implement it for two years? The sense of urgency that has existed on other occasions does not exist here.
	The contention that the Parliament Act can be used because the other place is clearly engaged in blocking the Bill also needs to be examined. The Hunting Bill that was introduced in the 200001 Session proposed three options: a ban, self-regulation and a statutory hunt licensing authority. This House voted for a ban; the other place voted for regulation. Far from the Government taking the viewand pursuing the matter vigorouslythat this House was right and that the House of Lords was frustrating matters, the Minister introduced a Bill that provided for a regulatory approach. He therefore agreed with the broad thrust of what the other place was saying. It was hardly surprising that, when new clause 11which would effectively ban huntingwas added to the Bill at the very last moment on Report last year, Members in the other place took the view that they did. They had been encouraged to take that view by what the Minister had said in this place. We should also not forget that the Bill had only two days in Committee in the other place before it ran out of time.
	All previous Bills passed under the Parliament Act have reached the ping-pong stage between the two Houses at least once. The basic parliamentary principle should be that the other place has either spent an inordinate time dealing with a Bill, or that it has returned it to the Commons in amended form, signifying an impasse. On this Bill, the Government initially agreed with the approach of the other place and introduced a Bill of a regulatory nature, which was ambushed on Report. They then gave up after only two days in Committee in the Lords. Far from the shilly-shallying being at the other end of this building, the blame lies fairly and squarely with the Government.

Gregory Barker: Is it not worth remembering that, when Labour Members talk about the will of Parliament, they are actually talking about the will of a minority of Members of this House? I was a teller when the last vote was taken on this issue, and fewer than half the Members of the House of Commons voted for a ban; the other Members voted against one, absented themselves or abstained. To try to pretend that there is a great well of support in this Chamber for a ban is downright nonsense. It would be impossible to form a Government with the number of Members who voted for a ban, and that is an excellent reason for their bigoted views to be frustrated in the revising Chamber.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, heard the Today programme this morning. A journalist from The Guardian was explaining that this issue had nothing to do with animal welfare, and that it represented the last knockings of the class war. Having heard the views of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who could disagree with that?

Lembit �pik: Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that the Bill that we have here does not seem to be the Bill that the Minister and the Prime Minister seemed minded to support? Does he agree that a serious concern about this procedure is that a Bill that evidently does not have the unanimous support of the Government is now going to be pushed throughwith all the holes that it haswithout our having had the opportunity to discuss it in Committee in the lower House?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman has played a huge part in these proceedings[Interruption.] No, it is true that he has. He has played a very constructive part. He is right: how can the Government table a motion involving the massive Executive powers of the guillotine and the Parliament Acts, when they themselves have said that the Bill is unworkable and unenforceable? It is quite wrong for a Government to behave in this way with this sort of Bill.
	The Parliament Acts provide that a Bill sent from this House must take the same form, but this will be the first time that a Bill has been so different from the one that was originally presented that the necessary detailed provisions have not been properly debated.

Tony Banks: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he just said? He was repeating the usual nonsense about this being all about the class war. If this is a class issue, it is a middle class issuea middle England issue. The profile of the passionate anti-hunterwhich I know because I get thousands of letters from themis a middle class white woman living in the home counties, or a county town or village who reads the Daily Mail. That shows how much of a class issue this is.

Oliver Heald: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is the exception, but I do not think so, because he used to describe this as a totemic class issue.
	The final change that was made on Report last year resulted in a recommittal to a Standing Committee, but the debate was very limited in scope and the main problem areas were simply never debated. It is right to quote the remarks of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who said on 30 June last year:
	We must not send a defective Bill to the other place.
	He went on to warn that
	we would face extreme difficulty if we sought to apply the Parliament Acts to a defective piece of legislation.[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 39.]
	The Government know the verdict of their own parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was that with a blanket ban compensation would be needed to meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights. Other important issues to be dealt with are the breadth of the offence created and the nature of the intent required to commit the offence of hunting. Whatever side of the argument we are on, not many of us would want to pass a Bill that would result in tourists being charged with hunting just because they came upon a hunt one day.
	We should have a Committee stage, and it is vital that there should be an opportunity to introduce motions suggesting amendments.

Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a democracy such as ours, minorities put their rights and liberties at the disposal of the majority, and abide by the decisions of the majority, on the basis of an understanding that their voice will be properly heard and that the procedure will be fair? The absence of a Committee stage effectively abrogates any such concordat, and people will accordingly be inclined to look beyond Parliament for the protection of their liberties as a consequence of that omission.

Oliver Heald: Our freedoms are important and should not be treated in a cavalier fashion. One of our great concerns is the way in which the curtailing of debate has become commonplace through the programming system. It would be extremely dangerous, from a constitutional point of view, if the use of the Parliament Acts were also to become commonplace. The Labour Peers group has suggested that the Parliament Acts should be far more regularly used, and many of us view that with great concern. Those on the other side of the House, or in the other place, who disagree with me on this issue might want to consider that, at some point, they will be on the other side of the Chamber. I hope that that will happen in six months' time, but I might be wrong. We shall have to see. That time will come, and to have curtailment of debate and the routine use of the Parliament Acts would be a disgrace.

Douglas Hogg: May I follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? As we do not have entrenched rights, save those incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998which are only now being developeddoes it not behove hon. Members in this House to be very sparing with their power as a majority to impose on other people moral and ethical values that they simply do not share?

Oliver Heald: That is a vital point.
	Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides for suggestion motions, which provide the opportunity to make a proposal for an amendment to the other place. It was no less a figure than Winston Churchill in 1913, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the Liberal Government, who said:
	The Suggestion stage is . . . to enable either small points which are oversights to be set right by general agreement or to enable suggestions of compromise to be put forward and debated. The root principle of the Parliament Act is that every amendment which makes for agreement, and for a change in a Bill which tends to lessen disagreement, can be incorporated in the Bill without depriving it of the advantages of the . . . Parliament Act.[Official Report, 23 June 1913; Vol. LIV, c. 843.]
	On the Order Paper today, motions are proposed to deal with issues such as compensation, intent and the breadth of the offence. Only this week, we heard that the business for tomorrow could not go ahead, and that time was available. I asked that some of that time should be set aside so that motions of suggestion on practical measures could be debated. What was the Government's reaction? It was a flat no.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not an extraordinary paradox that this Government, who have extended the provision for carry-over, do not apply that rather than the Parliament Act? It would be a much less offensive procedure to carry over this Bill, with a proper Committee stage, into the next Session, which is still within the lifetime of this Parliament, rather than to use the draconian Parliament Act.

Oliver Heald: Yes. I return to the point that I made earlier about whether Ministers believe genuinely that what is going to the other place is unworkable. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will remember saying:
	No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable.
	The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality will remember saying:
	A complete ban . . . would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty.
	He went on, after the ambush, to say that MPs,
	chose a Bill that is simple to explain rather than a Bill that is simple to enforce.
	In those circumstances, how can they justify using the panoply of governmentthe Executive powerto force the Bill through on a guillotine, and to use the Parliament Act, when they know that the Bill needs to be amended?

Candy Atherton: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that if the Bill were to go to a Committee stage, the House's final decision would be different?

Oliver Heald: The Government, not the Opposition, decide how much time is allocated for debate. Were amendment (n) allowed, which provides for other Members' motions under section 2(4) to be considered, and were the Government to allow half a day or even a day tomorrow to debate those motions, what would be lost? Nothing. The timetable for the Parliament Act would not be lost. It would just mean that this place would be allowed to do its jobto debate the concerns of the people.

Alun Michael: I want to make one thing clear, because several Members have spoken as though there has been no Committee stage. I remind the House that on the last occasion the Bill was re-committed for a Standing Committee to consider the implications of the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Therefore, it has had a Committee stage. In addition, for the Parliament Act to apply, the Bill must go to the House of Lords in exactly the same form as last time. If the hon. Gentleman is urging restraint, it should be on the House of Lords to address the Bill as it comes to it, and not to provoke the use of the Parliament Act.

Oliver Heald: The Minister may have forgotten what happened last time. The re-committal motion was only in respect of clause 11, so the debate was circumscribeda decision that you made, Mr. Speaker, and probably rightly so, on procedural grounds.
	The schedules and other issues set out on the Order Paper today were not capable of being discussed. As for section 2 motions, however, the operation of the Parliament Act would not be affected. As I suggested when I quoted Winston Churchill a moment ago, we can make suggestions, such as that for the delay, which will be debated. We could propose a suggestion on compensation, intent or the breadth of the offence, and if the other place agreed we might end up with a Bill that was a bit more enforceable or workable. It is therefore right that the House's debate should not be curtailed. Routinely, we seem to lose the opportunity to debate great rafts of amendments and new clauses as a result of the unilateral programming of legislation. The routine use of the Parliament Act for issues that are not of the highest importance is a dangerous step.
	As I said, I made a modest request of the Government for extra time. Amendment (n) would allow other motions to be discussed, and I ask all Members who value our procedures and right of debate to join me in the Lobby.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman referred to Winston Churchill's views on the Parliament Act. He may know that Winston Churchill also used to argue that one of the terrible difficulties about the original Parliament Acthe argued this when he was a Liberal, but not when he was a Conservativewas that in the second half of a Parliament, especially a Parliament that was shortened from seven years to five years, the other place was given significant additional powers every year that the Parliament went on, because it could delay the whole Government programme. Is that not one of the major reasons why we should use the Parliament Act? Otherwise, the other place will never learn its lesson.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his customary way, but the fact is that in this instance we are using the nuclear option, a draconian measure, to oppress a minority in rural areas. That is simply not acceptable, and I invite the support of Members from both sides of the House, who share a concern for our procedures and right of debate, to vote against the procedural motion and for the Opposition amendments.

Douglas Hogg: This is a very sad day for democracy. Those of us who value minority rights, our political institutions, toleration and moderation should be deeply ashamed, angry and distressed at today's proceedings. Through this motion and the Bill, we are riding roughshod over the liberties and freedoms of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. We are diminishing freedom itself. We are diminishing our freedom, and freedom under the law. That is a terrible thing to do.
	I want to turn specifically to the programme motion, which is currently before the House. First, it paves the way to the use of the Parliament Act, which is profoundly offensive. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) set out the reasons for objecting to the use of the Parliament Act. He has urged on the House that the Parliament Act should be used only in urgent and compelling cases. Surely he is right.
	We all know that there is no urgency. The Government conceded that there is no urgency by their implementation date. Leaving that aside, they could have introduced this Bill at any time in the past seven years had they chosen to do so. They did not, which is an implied recognition that there is no urgency.
	As to the compelling nature of the Bill, I am perfectly willing to accept that a large majority in the parliamentary Labour party want this Bill to be introduced. There is not a compelling desire in the country as a whole, however, but a diversity of opinion on the subject. We know as a fact that this Bill is not the Government's preferred choice, because, had it been so, they would have introduced it. Therefore, neither urgency nor compulsion is a justification for the Bill.

David Taylor: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why the definition of non-urgency will not lead to eternal procrastination in this place, as that has been the recipe in the past?

Douglas Hogg: I will come to exactly that point. Much of the debate has centred on the opposition in the other place to the passage of the Bill. That is truethe other place will not support it. In all modesty, we ought to ask ourselves why it will not support it. I know the answer: in a free society, we should not oppress minorities, and we should be very chary about imposing our moral and ethical values on sizeable proportions of the population who do not share those values.
	In many sophisticated societieswe are one suchthose propositions are defended by a Bill of Rights, which is an entrenched statutory provision policed by a supreme court. We do not have that. We must rely first on the other place and secondly on our sense of moderation. I believe in limited government. I think that majorities should be chary about imposing their views on other people. The fact that the other place has many times said no ought to suggest to us, in all modesty, that we are wrong to do that which we are doing.

Kevin McNamara: I have listened continually to the argument about repressing minorities. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall being a member of a Government who took away the right of tenure of university lecturers, got rid of the dock labour scheme, crushed the miners and, above all, reduced the rights of trade unionists? All those acts involved oppressed minorities and all used the Tory party's huge majority.

Douglas Hogg: I have two points to make in response to that. First, each issue must be determined on its merits. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman implies that this is an act of vengeance and that I find a profoundly unattractive statement.

Patrick Cormack: Would not the analogy have been rather better if the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) had mentioned his own championing of the minority in Northern Ireland, which was successful? Should we not equate that minority with the minority in rural England with whom we are concerned today?

Douglas Hogg: That is a sound point, with which I agree.

Lembit �pik: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that suggesting that the Bill should be forced through by means of this procedure because an earlier Government forced through other legislation that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did not like by means of similar procedures is a pathetic justification? Surely we are all obliged to consider the benefits and the costs, rather than simply seeking vengeance. The problem with the procedure motion is that it does not allow space for us to examine the Bill's flaws in detail. It is in the interests of those who want to ban hunting with dogs to have a good Bill that works rather than one that does not work for want of proper scrutiny.

Douglas Hogg: I entirely agreeand that brings me to the terms of the motion itself.
	First, let me say something about the time allowed for Second Reading. The motion allows but five hours for discussion of both the motion itself and Second Reading, and we should bear it in mind that Divisions will come out of that time. I expect debate on the motion to continue for some timeand quite right too, for this is an important matter. The closure may be movedalthough that is a matter for the Chair and indeed for hon. Membersand there may be a Division on that; in any event, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire has said that there will be two Divisions on amendments. There will therefore be at least three Divisions, and perhaps four.

Patrick Cormack: That could take an hour.

Douglas Hogg: That is my point. Out of the five hours that we have been allowed, we shall have at the very most four hours in which to debate both the programme motion and Second Reading. That means about two hours for Second Reading. On any view, the Bill raises constitutional matters of the highest importance and two hours is outrageous.

Peter Pike: Does not the timetable motion take account of all the time that we have spent debating the issue during the life of the current Parliament? Does it not recognise that, at the last election, the Labour party was elected on the basis of a clear indication that it would allow the decision to be made on a free vote? On more than one occasion, the House has plainly taken a view on a free vote. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman really arguing that the other, unelected House should have a permanent veto?

Douglas Hogg: There are two answers to that. First, it is the business of Governments to safeguard constitutional principles and the rights of minorities. This Government are betraying both, and that is a very serious charge against them. As for the position of the other House, I have already dealt with that. I happen to believe that, on this matter, the other House is right, because it is standing up for freedom, liberty and minority rights. We should listen to what it is saying and not try to override it.
	Let me now say something about the question of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made an important point about that. The programme motion does not allow for a Committee stage, a Report stage or any amendment whatever. That is objectionable for at least two reasons. First, I have never encountered a Bill that, even in its own terms, could not be improved. My hon. Friend pointed out that even those of us who are root and branch against the Bill, as I am, would like, if there must be legislation, at least to see competent and effective legislation. Compensation, for instance, is a vital issue, but we cannot table a compensation amendment because there is no amendment that can be tabled.

Gordon Prentice: Is it not rich for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about compensation? As Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he specifically ruled out compensation for farmers affected by BSE.

Douglas Hogg: I introduced one of the most generous schemes to support the beef market that could have been contemplated by anyone. I should have thought that there were better criticisms to make of me than that.
	My second point about amendments is desperately important. Amendments provide a way of testing the logic of any particular proposition. It is not just a case of improving a Bill; it is a case of testing its inherent logic. Amendments of that kind are often called probing amendments.
	The Bill contains an express provision permitting falconry. I happen to support falconryI think it is a glorious sportbut I am entitled to ask, by means of an amendment, why the Bill expressly permits falconry while prohibiting hunting with hounds. Where lies the logic in that? Similarly, there are provisions relating to terrier work and shooting. I am an enthusiastic, if very incompetent, shot, but why does the Bill expressly permit terrier work on foxes in order to facilitate the shooting of pheasants, but prohibit hunting with hounds? Where lies the logic in that? That is the kind of question that can be addressed by probing amendments. Such a procedure affects public understanding of a Bill and I think that it would increase hostility towards this provision.

Alan Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that, in the last Parliament, I argued in Standing Committee that the Bill would prohibit ratting. The Government denied that at several sittings, but having looked at the Bill more closely they returned several weeks later with amendments to deal with the matter.

Douglas Hogg: Schedule 1 includes ratting as a permitted form of hunting. That makes the right hon. Gentleman's point: no Bill that has ever come before us could not have been improved. By using the Parliament Act, however, we are preventing this Bill from being improved, and that is outrageous.
	I have two final points to make. The first relates to Third Reading. The motion allows but half an hour, which is a desperately short time for Members who will not have been able to speak earlier and who may well want to ask the essential question, Where lies the difference in principle between shooting, hunting with hounds and angling? They would want to say on Third Reading that there is no essential difference and that to try to distinguish between those things is profoundly and shamefully wrong.
	I do not suppose that my words will prevail, but I desperately hope that hon. Members will rally round the principle that other people's freedoms are our freedoms. We cannot destroy the freedoms of law-abiding minorities without diminishing freedom itself. If right hon. and hon. Members agree with that simple and time-honoured proposition, they will oppose the programme motion and they will oppose the Bill.

Barry Sheerman: I shall speak very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All politicians like to remain popular with their own side, but I should point out that, on this issue, I am in a minority among Labour Members, although not a persecuted one. I hope that this debate will continue in the good-tempered way in which it started and allow a different opinion to be expressed on the Labour Benches.
	In debating a motion such as thisI oppose it and will vote against itwe sometimes lose track of the issues. My interpretation of what we said in our manifesto differs from the Minister's. We said that we would have a vote and let Parliament decide, but the fact is that the two Houses profoundly disagree.

Alun Michael: I should remind my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.

Barry Sheerman: Yes, but the fact is that the long-running disagreement between the two Houses has led to a conclusion: stalemate. We now have to decide whether this issue is important enough to warrant invoking the Parliament Act.
	When I first heard that we were going to deal with this issue in the manifesto, I regretted the fact, because in my view it should be dealt with through a private Member's Bill. I am sorry that the Government have got so deeply involved, but I applaud the fact that we continue to have free votes.

Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend says that he regrets the Government's intervening, but he will recall the time when the whole Tory Cabinet turned up on a Friday and voted against my private Member's Bill.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some of the arguments from the Conservatives on this issue are not very good and listening to them almost guarantees that I will change the way I vote. However, I do not like persecuting minorities and I do not want communities that have values and a way of life that differ from mine to lose them.
	I have a serious worry. I was in the House during the Thatcher years, when disgraceful and dreadful things were done to communities such as mining communities, but I draw a different lesson from that. I do not want to do to rural communities what the Thatcher Government did to the mining communities; two wrongs do not make a right. They may be the minority, but there are many people in this country who take a different view from the majority on country sports. As I explained in the original debate on this issue in 1997, I used to be anti-hunting, but then I thought through why I took that view. I have never hunted and I never want to. I do not shoot. I do not ride. However, I have lived in the country, reared chickens and ducks, and had foxes take them away. As I said in 1997, if someone can prove to me that there is a more humane way of killing a fox than hunting with dogs, I will change my view, but the Burns inquiry and every piece of evidence that I have seen since then has not persuaded me that there is a more humane way.

Tony Banks: Perhaps I might steer my hon. Friend back the procedural matter and the manifesto pledge that Parliament would decide on this issue. It has not been resolved, and a stalemate is not a decision. Does my hon. Friend, who is a good House of Commons man, not see the qualitative difference between huge majorities arrived at through a free vote on the Floor of the House and their being overturned and frustrated by an unelected Chamber?

Barry Sheerman: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in this House a long time, and I realise that invoking the Parliament Act is a question of judgment; that judgment is based on the importance that we attach to the issue in question. In my view, this issue is nowhere near important enough to justify invoking that Act.
	It is clear that there is a strong divide between the two Houses. I am not a great supporter of the House of Lords; indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may know, I voted for its abolition. But the fact is that we have it, and its current role is that of a second Chambera Chamber that is perhaps a little more thoughtful and which takes time to contemplate issues. [Interruption.] That has always been its role. Given our current constitution and the fact that we have not abolished the Lords, we should listen to it very seriously when such disagreements arise.
	My great worry is this: after today, when will we next use the Parliament Act? Will we use it when another such issue arises? I have been in the House long enough to remember the long hours that were spent debating abortion. Many people took different views on that issue, which, I am pleased to say, was always dealt with through private Members' Bills. I would be horrified if it were dealt with in the manner adopted in the United States. I sincerely believe that it is in the best interests of this country and of the House if issues such as abortion are dealt with, as they have always been, through private Members' Bills and on a free vote.

David Winnick: But the only reason that the law on abortion was changed was that the then Government provided time to do so during what was my first Parliament, in 1966; otherwise, the Opposition would have ensured that no such law passed. As my hon. Friend knows, if there is sufficient opposition, no private Member's Bill ever gets through. Is he really saying that, despite free votes in the previous and current Parliaments producing substantial majorities, the will of the House of Commons should be permanently opposed through a permanent veto by the House of Lords? If so, what is the purpose of our debates and decisions?

Barry Sheerman: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friendwe have been friends for a very long timebut we hold different views on the importance we attach to hunting with dogs. In my view, there is a range of issues, such as abortion, that this House should debate in a very different way. They should be debated through private Members' Bills, because that is a much healthier method.
	I have never regarded this issue as a party political one; indeed, the voting patterns of peersbe they Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrathave been all over the place. I accept that there is less diversity among Labour Members, and I regret that the reality is that most of the Members who support hunting are Conservatives. There would be a freer exchange of views if opinions were more diverse.

Gregory Barker: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's extremely courageous speech. The most thoughtful of the speeches in the other place that I have heardthose expounding the defence of liberty and showing the greatest concern for minoritieswere made not by Conservative peers but Labour ones, some of whom were appointed only recently. One of the best speeches was made by Lord Waheed Alli.

Tony Banks: That is only because the hon. Gentleman agrees with what he said.

Barry Sheerman: Noises off, as my hon. Friend would say.
	We are in a very difficult position. I am a political realist, and I know that the steamroller of the Parliament Act will be invoked, but I warn my colleagues that doing so will not do the Labour party or the Labour Government a great deal of good in the long term. At the end of the day, the British public rumbled ThatcherismI am being very political herebecause of the divisive nature of that Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that it was a ghastly, divisive period in our history, but I am surprised that a Labour Government should be taking us back into the same territory. We may be dealing with a different minority, but they still have rights. I do not want to be seen, and I do not want my party to be seen, as willing to ignore other people's minority rights. We do not want that coming back to haunt usand it will. This will not be resolved by the invocation of the Parliament Act.
	We have a long history as a party that stands up for minorities and goes to the front line to protect their rights, but here we have a different sort of minority that we happen not to agree with, so we are going to trample all over their rights.

Claire Ward: It is a real shame that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that there is outright support for this policy in the Watford party and among my constituents. People want us to settle the issue, because we promised that we would. It is also a matter of trust: in the past two general election campaigns, we said that we would bring the matter to a close. It is absolutely clear that the majority in this House favour a ban on hunting. We can take into account all sorts of minority issues, but at the end of the day, if hunting is wrong, we must take a stand against it. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong and unacceptable in the 21st century in modern Britain and I shall be very pleased to vote to ban it tonight.

Barry Sheerman: I understand my hon. Friend's view, and recognise the passion with which she holds it. I, too, hold passionate views, but I worry about her conclusion that we should now rush this through with the Parliament Act when we know that a substantial number of people in our country profoundly disagree with it.

Kate Hoey: It will not surprise the House to hear that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. May I remind him and the House that in the two votes in the Commons and the Lords last year, 406 parliamentarians supported a licensing system, compared with 366 backing a ban? On Third Reading, let us not forget, only 317 of the 659 Members of Parliament voted for a ban. That is not an absolute majority.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend and I mostly agree on this, and I thank her for that intervention.
	We have a stand-off between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I have been in politics for a long time, and it seems to me that the best solution in such a situation is to seek compromise, to meet somewhere halfway, and I have to say that, time and again, there is[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have sedentary interventions. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the procedure motion.

Barry Sheerman: Yes we are, and I am saying that I regret my party's support for the use of the Parliament Act, because as a Government, as a party and as professional politicians, surely it would be better, rather than taking the Thatcher way in a stand-off, for us to say to one another that we must find a compromise. There is a group of people in this House who, sometimes making themselves quite unpopular, have tried to come up with compromises to break the deadlock between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I would have thought that, as grown-up men and women, we could do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister took an important and courageous role in going for the compromise of a regulated system, which I would have supported, because I believe that politics is about compromise, and on such an important issue, on which a vital minority have a great interest, compromise would have been the right way forward.

Alun Michael: Would my hon. Friend therefore urge Members in another place to engage with the Bill as it reaches them and make proposals, should they wish to do so, so that engagement between the two Houses can take place in the ordinary way? If that were to happen, the use of the Parliament Act would not be necessary.

Barry Sheerman: I certainly urge colleagues in another place to be reasonable and to compromise, as long as that does not mean that whatever compromise they offer is simply bounced back or cast aside in this Chamber, and we get the same straight abolition all over again.

Mark Tami: But has not the other House cast aside the views of this House by the way in which it has acted on this issue over many years?

Barry Sheerman: This is not the easiest speech to make from this side. I have tried to make the case and to draw some parallels, but clearly we are not going to agree, and I do not want to try colleagues' patience any longer.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for compromise to work, both sides must be willing to shift? When the Lords showed that they were willing to shift to an extent, there was no reciprocity on the part of those who favour a ban in this House. That is why stalemate ensued, but the upper House cannot be held responsible for that.

Barry Sheerman: I take that point.
	Finally, I appeal to hon. Members to step back for a moment. Those who have been here as long as I have care very much about the reputation of the House, of Parliament and of professional politicians. This does that reputation no good. Whatever their views on hunting, most people outside the House want to see fair play, and I do not think that people watching our debate and seeing the Parliament Act being invoked will think that the British sense of fair play is getting a fair crack of the whip. I am sorry to finish on this note. As long as there are not too many inflammatory speeches from the other side, I shall continue to vote against the Bill.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He made a courageous speech and demonstrated that he was genuinely wrestling with the arguments and the evidence to try to come to a judgment on the issues. I have come to a different view, from a different perspective, interestingly, because I come from the country and I used to follow and support the hunt, but, having considered all the issues, I now support a ban. He said that he had searched for evidence that there is a more humane way than hunting to deal with pest control, and so have I. I will not bore the House by repeating what I have said in Committee and in this Chamber about more humane ways of controlling pests in the countryside.
	I also agree that there are many more important things for the House to spend its time on. We have debated this issue in and around the House for many hundreds of hours, and I think it would be improper for us to spend hundreds more going through a marathon course of Committee and consideration when the issues have already, in my view, been resolved.
	I believe that the debate is not about hunting but about who runs the country and how it is run: is it run on the basis of primogeniture, birthright and what one might describe as the old boy network, or is it run on the basis of democracy? Which is the pre-eminent Chamber? In my viewand, I believe, the view of most hon. Membersthe Commons is the pre-eminent Chamber. We have considered the issue and come to a conclusion on it. Many Bills are enacted on the basis of the votes of fewer than 50 per cent. of elected Members. Whatever the result of the electoral arithmetic when votes are taken, as long as the issues are concluded in a proper manner, I am happy for that to happen.
	There is a great debate about the relevance of democracy here. Having been involved in Committee and the other stages when the last Bill was considered, I believe that it is important, now that the Bill has been brought back before us, that we read and reflect on the debate in the other place to see whether their Lordships produced any blinding flash, pearl of wisdom or indisputable fact that somehow passed us by in all the hundreds of hours that we spent considering the issues.
	The forthcoming Second Reading debate will provide me with the opportunity to assess in greater detail some of the points raised in the other place and to establish whether they were new, interesting or relevant to our current debate. After all, the second Chamberthe lower Chamber, in my viewis a Chamber for revision, advice and sober second thought, not for obstruction or frustrating the will of the democratically elected House of Commons.
	I will not identify individuals, but instead refer to column references in the House of Lords debate. On Second Reading on 16 September, one noble Lord said that our decision was
	an affront to the whole process of democracy[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 840.]
	That was a comment from an hereditary peer, so if we are an affront to democracy, what does that make him? Another noble Lord said:
	Democracy is the will of the people, not just members of another place.[Official Report, 16 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 78283.]
	The fact is that we have to weigh up the issues, consider all the evidence and reach a judgment on the basis of that evidence. We have had enough evidence to do so, and we should now spend as little time as is reasonably possible to come to our conclusion. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is no longer in his place, argued that there was no urgency to push the issue through. However, several Members intervened to point out that although there is no greater urgency now than there was seven years agoin the sense that nothing more significant is going to happen in the countryside now than was going to happen seven years agoit is important for us to make progress on the issue. Given the process of perpetual obstruction from the other place, we have to reach the sad conclusion that the Minister is right and that, if necessary, we will have to invoke the Parliament Act.

Kate Hoey: To be clear, for the benefit of Liberal Democrat supporters all over the country, is it the official Liberal Democrat view that the Parliament Act should be used to force through a ban on hunting?

Andrew George: I am speaking for the Front Bench, but it is a free vote for the party. The party is in favour of a ban on hunting, but I have made it clear that I am offering my personal judgment. It is a free vote for all Liberal Democrats and the whole parliamentary party. My judgment is that we have spent quite enough time on this issue and that we cannot allow perpetual obstruction to continue. The matter must be resolved and, regrettably, it may have to be resolved in this way.

Kate Hoey: rose

Andrew George: No, I will not give way because I want to move on

John Greenway: rose

Andrew George: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

John Greenway: I am grateful, as I seek further clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the current Bill is preferable to the Bill that the Government originally introduced?

Kate Hoey: It is the Liberal Democrat view.

Andrew George: The hon. Lady says that this is the Liberal Democrat view, but I have already said that the party has a clear position on the issue of hunting and that all Members in the parliamentary party have a free vote. I have also made it clear, during many hours of debate on Third Reading and on Reportthe hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) may not have been around; otherwise he would knowthat I favour a Bill closer to the Minister's original Bill, which included a form of regulation, than the current Bill. However, none of us is in any position to design our own Bill. There is a free vote. There could well be 659 different versions of the Bill. At the end of the day, a compromise and a judgment have to be reached. My judgment is that a number of faults could be ironed out and may be ironed out in due course, but that I will support the Bill in its current form today.

Chris Bryant: I hate to help out a Liberal Democrat when he is creating a fudge, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing now. However, does he agree that the real problem about the relationship between our Chamber and the second Chamber, with respect to the Parliament Act, is that many people in the country who do not follow every jot and tittle of what we do in Parliament see us vote successively with significant majorities in favour of a ban on hunting, yet still it never comes to pass, which undermines parliamentary democracy?

Andrew George: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a greater knowledge of the implications of the Parliament Act than the Liberal Democrats and I do. He is certainly right to recognise that the general population would be astounded to think that an unelected House of Lords could overrule the House of Commons.

Crispin Blunt: Is not the key issue one of parliamentary democracy in a bicameral system? This is a moral question, which is why there is a free vote with no fixed party positions. The issue is similar to abortion and assisted dying, where it is for individuals to reach their own point of view. The Government are required to provide parliamentary time for such issues to pass. However, the other Chamber should also endorse the legislative changes when they are as controversial as this issue, abortion or assisted dying. There should be a triple lockboth Chambers and the Government making time for legislationbefore we start removing the liberties that have been held by substantial minorities for so long.

Andrew George: I agree that we should be cautious about how we proceed, but my reading of the House of Lords debate on Second Reading and in Committee is that nothing new was brought to the overall debate that had not already been argued in the House of Commons. If I thought that there were significant matters that we had not considered prior to the debate in the other place, my attitude would be different. It is a question of judgment. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the House of Lords debate, but I can assure him I found nothing new in it. I believe that the Lords are engaged in simple obstruction of the settled will of this democratic Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) also referred to the issue of liberty, which has been repeated by many hon. Members in their contributions to the debate. It is quite interesting that that issue has been presented

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the time that we might have for the Second Reading debate. We will have more time for that if hon. Members deal quickly with the procedure motion. I ask him and future speakers to make sure that their remarks relate to that motion.

Andrew George: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making about the procedural motion has to do with the extent to which we in this Chamber have the right to question the approach taken by the House of Lords to defending the apparent liberties of alleged minorities. I want to address that issue, but I shall take your advice and save my comments on liberty and minority rights until the Second Reading debate.

Phil Sawford: We are discussing procedure and urgency in this debate, but I was concerned to learn this morning that people wearing masks were in a vehicle outside my home last night. The vehicle apparently contained some sacks of manure and there appears to have been an intention to carry out an illegal or criminal act around my home. It seems that the people in the vehicle left when they saw police cars arrive, but that is not surprising as I live two doors along from a police station.
	I was surprised to learn that the local media had colluded in this disgraceful attempt to harass and intimidate my family. I was even more concerned to learn from a local reporter that the people involved initially got the wrong address, which would have meant that their target would have been my parents' home rather than mine. My father is 79 years old, and my mother, who has a heart condition, is 78. Those masked intruders were planning to intimidate and harass the wrong people.
	I come now to the question of procedure. I suspect that the people to whom I have referred are not representative of the vast majority of hunt supporters and that they belong to some kind of lunatic fringe. However, I think that there is a degree of urgency about this matter if that is the way such people are going to act in an attempt to intimidatenay, terrorisethe families of Members who speak in this Chamber. The sooner we bring this matter to a conclusion, the better.
	It is important for us to deal with the procedural question and enshrine the decision of this Chamber in the law of the land. We must implement that decision at the earliest opportunity, in the hope that we can prevent further examples of the sort of activity that took place yesterday evening outside my constituency home. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), is a constituent of mine, and I understand that his family were subjected to similar treatment. The people involved left when they saw some police vehicles.

Tony Banks: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) thinks that that is funny.

Phil Sawford: I regret that such intimidation of Members' families seems to amuse certain Opposition Members. This is an urgent matter and I beg the House to resolve it today.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course no one on these Benches would dream of countenancing or supporting any sort of criminal activity or misbehaviour, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) just remarked to me that not much was being said about procedural matters. Many hon. Members wish to speak on Second Reading, when there will be an eight-minute limit. Is it really in order for the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) to plough on talking about other things?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.

Patrick Cormack: Of course no hon. Member would ever condone the sort of actions to which the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) referred, regardless of his or her position on the procedure motion or the substantive issue facing us today.
	I want to refer to the admirable and courageous speech made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has now left the Chamber. It is not easy to speak against one's own side or the majority of one's colleagues, as I know from experience. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) knows that I spoke out in favour of retaining the Greater London council when it was being abolished, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not here, knows that I voted against the closure of the coal mines. I therefore know what it is like to be in a minority. I want to urge Labour Members, and those on my side who are in favour of this Bill, to pause for a moment to consider the consequences of this procedural motion.
	We are discussing this motion for one reason onlythe embarrassment of the Prime Minister. On the one hand, he is constantly being reminded of the off-the-cuff commitment that he gave in a television interview; on the other, he feels somewhat beleaguered among Labour Members as a result of policies that many of his colleagues do not like. It so happens that I am one of his great supporters on the most important of those policies, but that is neither here nor there. The Prime Minister's Iraq policy is very unpopular among Labour Members, and he feels that he has got to give them some red meat. He has therefore authorised his business managers to bring in this extraordinary procedural motion, and in so doing he has deprived the House of a proper opportunity to discuss the Bill.
	That course of action appears all the more disgraceful when we remember that the original Bill introduced by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality was markedly different from the one that we are discussing today. I give credit to the Minister because he tried very hard to fight his corner.

David Cameron: Not that hard.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend says that the Minister did not try that hard, but that is a matter for debate and discussion. It would not be appropriate to go into the matter in this debate on the procedure motion. If we did so, I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would pull me up short, and quite right too.
	Whether or not the Minister tried very hard to get the original Bill through the House, he eventually gave up the attempt and became a convert to the theory of the total ban. As a result, the Bill under consideration today is very different from the one that he commended to the House last year. He is introducing it with the protection of the most draconian procedural motion that we have had to debate in this Parliament. The Minister is depriving this House of an opportunity to hold a proper Second Reading debate, and of having any debate at all in Standing Committee.
	There is absolutely no reason for the Minister to adopt that course of action. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the shadow Leader of the House, made an admirable speech, and I intervened on him to make the point that, over the past few years, the Housewisely or unwiselyhas introduced a raft of so-called modernisation measures. It is no secret among colleagues on either side of the House that I am deeply unsympathetic to many of those changes, but the fact is that they have been brought in. One of those changes means that we can now carry over Bills into a new Session to a much greater extent than before.
	It would have been entirely consistent with the Government's so-called modernisation theory if, instead of commending this motion to the House, the Minister had commended a carry-over motion. That would have been much more respectful of Parliament and of the rural minority. The members of that minority feel beleaguered and aggrieved, as the economy is a long way from being as buoyant as was alleged earlier today.
	After all, this Parliament has almost two years left to run. In many quarters, it is suggested that the Prime Minister is likely to decide that he does not want to go on for another two years and that he will go to the country on the day of next year's county council elections, which will be held on 5 May. Even if that is his preferred optionwe would not expect him to tell us the date at this stagewe have a state opening of Parliament fixed for 23 November. Another Queen's Speech will be presented, and there is no reason at all why this Bill could not be proceeded with in this Session in a more seemly and proper manner in both Houses and carried over to the next Session.

David Winnick: May I clear up one point, which is the one about the Prime Minister bringing the Bill back because of Iraq? Many of us who supported the Government's policy on that issue, and who continue to do so, were among those who at every opportunity, be it Prime Minister's questions, business questions or whatever, pressed for the Parliament Act to be used. Not one of my colleaguesnot onewho takes an opposite view about the war would change his or her mind because of what is now being done. It is absolute fiction to say that the only reason the Bill is before us is that the Prime Minister wants to curry support within the parliamentary party.

Patrick Cormack: I suggested not that it was the only reason, but that it was a contributory reason, and I am firmly convinced that it is. The urban masses on the Labour Benches do not understanddo not want to understandthe ways of the countryside. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, sit for a largely rural constituency, but we must remember that the majority of our people live in towns, or near them. The majority of people in the world, I heard on the Today programme this morning or yesterdayit must be true, thereforewill be urban well before the middle of the century. Does not that make it more incumbent than ever on those of us who represent all our people to have a particular regard for that rural minority on whom we depend so much for sustenance?

Henry Bellingham: The people whom my hon. Friend has mentioned will have their democratic rights taken away because the Bill is not going to be debated. Surely the Government usually put a Bill through all its stages in one day only when there is an emergency or where something has suddenly cropped up or there is all-party agreement when the House is proroguing, yet they have known about this Bill for months and months and months.

Patrick Cormack: Those points have already been made very powerfully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in a most magnificent speech. Of course, that is true, but it is much more serious than that. What we seek to do today is to use a parliamentary steamrollerthat is what the procedural motion isto criminalise a very large number of extremely law-abiding people, upon whom, to a large degree, the fabric of rural society depends.
	I tried today to get in at Prime Minister's questions. I make no complaint about the fact that I was not called, but what I was going to ask the Prime Minister was whether he would vote to criminalise large sections of the rural community. At a time when law and order rightly dominates the postbags and surgery time of most Members of Parliament, is it sensible to introduce a whole range of criminal acts when those acts are at the moment entirely legal, and to do it, moreover, in this procedural way?

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on constitutional and parliamentary matters, and we defer to him in that respect and listen carefully to what he says. Surely, though, Parliament does not criminalise people. We pass legislation, and if individuals then decide to defy the law, as democratically carried through, they criminalise themselves. We make certain things unlawful, but if people persist in doing them, they criminalise themselves.

Patrick Cormack: Let me make one thing plain. I have made the point to friends in my constituency and in the Countryside Alliance that I have not, do not and never will condone the breaking of the law, however stupid that law may be. What I have just said is still entirely valid and relevant, however. At the moment, country sports are legal, and I am proud today to wear the tie of the Countryside Alliance. Country sports are legal, and what we are saying to the responsible, animal-loving, animal-caring people who practise our country sportsno section of our community loves or cares for animals and wildlife more than these people dois that we are going to make what they do criminal. In a moral sense, I believe that it is criminal to do that, and all of us ought to pause before we do it.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an essential issue of trust between the people and the Government? If the Government believe that the Bill is unworkable, as the Minister has said, and unenforceable, as the Secretary of State has said, how can the Government use this steamroller mechanism to criminalise people with a defective Bill?

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend reinforces the very point that I have made. What we are doing in this extraordinarily tight procedural motion is proceeding on a Bill that will make the lives of the police force of this country, particularly in the rural areas, almost impossible.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: In a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will just contain himself.
	I have talked to police officerssenior police officers, at thatwho of course will have no option but to enforce the law, if this becomes the law, but who say that it will take their eye off many things, such as rural burglary, vandalism and all those other crimes that bedevil society in our constituencies. I have the honour to represent a number of rural villages, but not a single one is not defaced by vandalism and nuisance crime, and not a single one has adequate policing from the point of view of numbers, whatever the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary may protest from that Dispatch Box. Yet here we are, making the life of the police more and more difficult.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has a deserved reputation in the House for standing up for the rights of Back Benchers and for the Chamber vis--vis the Government, yet he seems to be arguing, as several other hon. Members have, that if this Bill were the Government's Bill, unamendedthe Minister's original Billthere would be a greater reason for using the Parliament Act. Surely it makes more sense when this Chamber has spoken through the will of ordinary Back Benchers that the Parliament Act should apply.

Patrick Cormack: I do not agree. I said earlier, intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, that I have been profoundly unhappy about the use of the Parliament Act in recent years. I was one of those who spoke out very forcefully, having voted against the War Crimes Bill, on the use of the Parliament Actin that case, by a Conservative Government. If that was bad, and I believe that it was, this is a thousand times worse. To use the Parliament Act in a manipulative way, having sacrificed a Government measure and superimposed a private Member's measure on top of it, is frankly indefensible. It is all the more indefensible when there is readily available the procedural device of the carry-over. The Minister seeks to intervene, and I shall of course allow him to do so, but let him respond to that point.

Alun Michael: There is no need for carry-over, because there is no need for additional time. The Bill had a Committee stage when it was last before the House. No other Bill to which the Parliament Act has applied has ever had a Committee stage the second time around, even the Bills of major constitutional importance in 1913. The point I make is that the Parliament Act is intended to resolve conflict between the two Houses; it is not about the importance of the relative issues. I would also invite him to encourage his friends in the Countryside Alliance, of which he said he was a member, to encourage its members to start to recognise the importance of the rule of law and to reconcile themselves to the possibility of legislation. I hope that by his words he will do nothing to suggest that people ought to break the law.

Patrick Cormack: I have already made that point, and I have made it many times inside and outside this House. The Minister is suffering from self-induced amnesia. He introduced a Bill that was totally transformed in Committee. Now he is introducing another Bill. For him to do that when the weapon of carry-over is at his disposal, and to force through this procedural motion in one brief afternoonone brief part of one brief afternoon, indeedis, in fact, an insult to Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is now engaging in personal conversation rather than listening to the debate, was kind enough to say that I was something of a champion of Parliament and its rights. I am honoured to be thought of in such terms. I believe passionately in this place and in the totality of Parliament, including the other place. This House has a duty to itself to use its most powerful weapons exceptionally sparingly. Today, we are doing precisely the opposite.

Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: I will give way for the third time to my old but misguided friend.

Tony Banks: It is because the hon. Gentleman is making so many interesting points that people want to intervene. Those who favour using the Parliament Act in this case do so because they agree with the Bill, and those who disagree do not want to use the Act. I would be in favour of using the Parliament Act if this Chamber passed a measureby the majority that it did on huntingthat I totally opposed, on the ground that I believe in principle that this Chamber's will must always prevail over that of the unelected Chamber. If this House had been unanimous on the issue, would the hon. Gentleman support the use of the Parliament Act? Is the issue numbers or principle?

Patrick Cormack: It is a matter of principle. The principle is that the Parliament Act, which is the last weapon in the armoury of this House, should be used only very sparingly and for the most important issues. Strong views are honourably held on both sides of this debate. We know that the Liberal Democrats are divided, I have colleagues who want a ban and there are brave proponents of hunting on the Labour Benches. However, the subject is not of paramount importance in the national consciousness. I had a snack earlier in the Tea Room[Interruption.] On this occasion, it was a little snack. A Member from another partyI shall not embarrass him by identifying himsat with me and I asked him his view of the issue. He said, Well, if I had to list the 250 most important topics for my constituents, hunting would come 639th. Most of our constituents do not believe that the issue is of such paramount importance that it justifies Parliament using its ultimate weapon.
	I end with an appeal to those who desperately want to ban hunting. Their first and foremost duty as parliamentarians is to the parliamentary integrity of this place. They are not serving that ideal today. In the words of Cromwell, I say to them
	I beseech you . . . think it possible you may be mistaken.

John Greenway: I have listened to this debate for almost two hours and I think that we should confine our remarks to the issue of the procedure motion. It is because I take fundamental objection to elements of the motion that I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those in favour of a ban on hunting seem to think that this House has discharged all its obligations by voting in favour of a total ban. The fact that some of us profoundly disagree with that is irrelevant to my point, because it is equally clear that the Minister and many other right hon. and hon. Members have reached the view that the Bill, as it stands, is deficient.
	If we believe in the integrity of this Chamber, we should accept that it should be this Chamber that seeks to address the deficiencies in the Bill, not the other place. We are not allowed to so because if we amend the Bill the Parliament Acts cannot be used. For that reason, the procedure motion is a constitutional outrage: we are being denied the opportunity of a Committee stage on this Bill. I am willing to accept that if we had a Committee of the whole House for two or three days, during which we debated some of the issues about which we feel passionatelysome of them are contained in hurried amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Memberswe might not win any of the votes, given the views of most of the governing party. But at least we would have fulfilled our constitutional responsibility to argue the matter in this House on behalf of our constituents. We are being denied that opportunity.
	Labour Members should think long and hard before they support the motion. They should divorce the motion from the issue and think about other issues on which Back Benchers have strong opinionssuch as abortion or assisted death and euthanasia. What would happen if we had a free vote on one of those issues, the other place came to a different view and the Government of the day denied this Chamber a Committee stage and rammed through a measure that divided the country, let alone both Houses and Members on both sides?
	We should not approve the motion because that would undermine our reason for being here.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, but the situation is even worse than he suggests. Through this motion, we are being asked to treat the Bill as if it has been through Committee stage. We are being asked to sign up to the sort of lie that would not be out of place in a banana republic Parliament or even in a dictatorship. That is the outrage.

John Greenway: I am grateful for that intervention, because that was the point that I intended to make. However, it is obvious that there is disagreement about whether and to what extent there has been Committee stage consideration of the changes that were introduced on Report last time. I agree with my hon. Friend that the consideration was unsatisfactory and inadequate, and we should have a Committee stage now to do the job properly. Everyone knows that the view of the police is that some of the provisions and the schedule are flawed. Indeed, it is apparent from what the Minister has saidhe encouraged the other place to make suggestions to make the Bill more workable and to address the deficienciesthat he accepts that the Bill is deficient. Why then should we rely on an unelected Chamber to change the Bill? We should endeavour to change it ourselves.
	I have tried to keep off the subject of hunting and talk purely about the motion and the precedent that will be set if we approve it. I happen to have in my constituency many people whose livelihoods and way of life will be wrecked if the Bill goes through. It is my constitutional right and responsibility to speak for them. The best way in which to discharge that right is to vote against this motion. Many Labour Back Benchers who will no doubt troop through the Lobby to support the motion will live to rue the day, because it will set a precedent which future Governments will use against other interests.
	I believe that we are not fulfilling our constitutional duty to examine legislation thoroughly. We are not being allowed to do so by a Government who seem to think that they can gain political advantage from the manoeuvres of the past few days and from what is happening today. If there is to be a delay of 18 months or two years in implementing the measure, it is inevitable that the next general election will be fought on the issue in constituencies up and down the land. That is not right in itself, and if Labour Members think it will advantage them, they have another think coming.
	Millions of people know that if the ban goes through, shooting and angling will be next. [Hon. Members: No, no.] They will. There is not a shadow of doubt about that. There will be a formidable body of opinion against the Prime Minister. Furthermore, many peoplewhether or not they like hunting, shooting or fishingbelieve that the measure undermines personal liberty and people's livelihoods, and they take grave exception to that. The measure does not give the Government such a straightforward political advantage as they think.

Lembit �pik: In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the great problem with the procedure that we are being offered is that it will squeeze out opportunities to present convincing arguments to people who support hunting? We have neither the space nor the time to do that. As we know that the country has been persuaded to oppose the ban, there is some hope that, through the use of proper procedure, at least those logical Members of Parliament who are not blinded by prejudice could be persuaded, too.

John Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to observe that, unlike many of his colleagues, he has earned great respect for his work on the measure during his years in this place.
	I conclude by again urging the House to think carefully about accepting the motion. Members must divorce it in their mind from the issue of hunting and consider only that if they support the motion they will be using a sledgehammer to crush minority interests and that, next time, they may be on its receiving end.

Lembit �pik: Every day when we start our business in the Chamber we say a prayer. It includes the words that Members should
	never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals, but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind.
	I am sure that many people simply go through the words, but when we think about them they mean that we must be objective about our decisions. Crucially, we must be willing to make decisions that are in line with our values, even if they are against our feelings. Sometimes that is easy, and often there is not even a vote in this place. However, sometimes it is hard and we end up with stalemate.
	When there is stalemate between this place and the upper House, it is incumbent on us to ask why. It is not hard to see why on this occasion, because the entire debate has been characterised by strong emotions and sincerely held views. In addition, procedural issues have arisen from the content of the Bill. Indeed, when dramatic changes to the previous Bill occurred on Report, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said that we should resist them, as they would wreck the Bill's architecture.
	It is hardly surprising that so many Members are unhappy about the procedure motion. I hope that Members will listen to my contribution, which is a sincere request that we be given the space to make a rational decision. I hope that we shall win and I shall explain my request.
	One of the greatest difficulties is that emotions never run higher than in the Chamber. The eyes of the nation are occasionally upon us and proceedings in the Chamber lend themselves to strong feelings and a confrontational mode. Sometimes we hear great insights, but at other times, long monologues of self-belief. By comparison, our Committees have been much more constructive; they have not been quite so provocative and there has been a degree of consensus on some issuesfor example, compensation.
	The one day3 July 2004allowed for us to debate the recommitted Bill showed that there was potential for development if we were given time. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) highlighted the fact that there are a number of faults to be ironed out. My first point, therefore, is that even those who support the ban feel that there are faults that could be ironed out, but how and when are we to do that? It will obviously be of great significance to the thousands of people massed outside this place to understand the processes the Government propose to iron out those faults. To date, I have heard nothing better than the possibility of a Committee.
	Secondly, we have already discussed the role of the Lords in the matter; it has been said that the Lords frustrated the will of the House. That is true. A majority of Members of this place voted for a ban and the upper House came to a different view. However, we must ask why[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. General conversations are breaking out in the Chamber. I should be grateful if hon. Members would do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of listening to his remarks.

Lembit �pik: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not take me long to make my points.
	Why did the Lords hold out on the issue to such an extent? I hope that those who are in favour of a ban, as well as those who are opposed, will accept that in many cases it is because their lordships sincerely hold a different view and have a different interpretation of their personal principles. That leads them to oppose a ban and to propose regulation or some other method. From a procedural point of view, it is thus not appropriate for the Minister to suggest that the threat of using the Parliament Act should prevent the upper House from interfering with the content of the Bill.
	We have all accepted that there are flaws in the Bill. Why not give the upper House the space to amend it? Of course, we know why not: because the Government want to use the Parliament Act and I shall not go into their motives for that. However, it is a great regret that we do not have the opportunity to amend the Bill and that much of our debate has ended up being criticism of the Lords.
	Labour Members are not in a position to criticise the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of decisions by the upper House. They should bear it in mind that they have presided over modifications to the other place, as defined by the Prime Minister's preference. We have a House of Lords designed by the Government, so it is not appropriate for them to criticise its condition.

Patrick Cormack: Is not it also true that about 300 of those Members of the House of Lords were put there by the Prime Minister?

Lembit �pik: Indeed. That is a fair point.
	We are where we are as a result of decisions made by the Prime Minister and others, so we need to be cautious about criticising the upper House as being wholly unacceptable. If it is, it is the result of decisions made by the Government.
	When a Lords Member said that these circumstances were an affront to democracy, I suspect that, because they felt so strongly about the issue, they felt frustrated that the Commons were not listening and were unwilling to compromise[Interruption.] Other Members may disagree, but I shall not pursue the matter.
	My third and last point is that we have a choice: whether to have the courage to find the right answer or simply to force through the answer before us today. I am sure that my views do not have the support of everybody in the House, but we must all agree that the measure involves a restriction of civil liberties. No one can deny that.
	There are also questions about animal suffering. I believe that if the Bill is passed, there will be an increase in animal suffering rather than a reduction. There are problems such as how a dog will differentiate hares and rabbits when it is chasing them and a host of other things that we need to discuss on Second Reading. The difficulty is that I can see no stage in the process when, in fairness to Members on both sides, we can look at the arguments in the same detail as we do in Committee. If we do not look at them, we shall end up with a defective Bill that does not even achieve what those in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs want. Let us bear it in mind that the Bill does not ban hunting with dogs; it bans the hunting of foxes and stags with dogs, but not the hunting of rabbits or rats.
	I really hope that, with the benefit of reflection on this discussion and hindsight on what has gone before this debate, it does take changing one's point of view on the substantive question of banning hunting with dogs to recognise that the procedure motion is defective and that it will not achieve the outcome that any hon. Member wants, simply because we do not have the space to do so.
	I shall not go through the middle way group's proposalI hope that we can do that, at least briefly, on Second Readingbut I conclude with this comment: this is not a debate about animal welfare unless we give ourselves the space to consider the implications on animal welfare of a ban.
	A Labour Member said to me just as I was coming into the Chamber, This is about the miners. Well, it is a great shame if people are getting mixed up. This is not about the miners; it is about the civil liberties of many people who particularly choose this pastime and, in many cases, use it as a fox-control technique, as they do in my area, and it is about animal welfare.
	If fox hunting is to be banned in this way, let us bear it in mind that, because of the precedent set by the House, future Governments of this or another persuasion can use it as a precedent. That precedent could come back and bite those very people who may be on the winning side this time.
	The stalemate between the upper and lower Houses indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the Bill. To force it through without consensus is a victory of prejudice, in my judgment, and a failure of intellectual integrity. Those in the pro-ban lobby can win the vote today, but they cannot pretend that, by stifling the debate and ignoring the existence of alternative views, they have won the argument. British citizens are fair-minded and they do not like injustice, but the procedure motion leads us towards a Bill that is not fair and can be unjust.
	In my judgment, therefore, the procedure motion and the Bill are illiberal. They do not take account of the change in the country's mood, given that most people do not support a ban on hunting with dogs, and certainly do not support its criminalisation. I can no more support the procedures proposed today than I can support the Bill in its current form.

Bob Spink: Whatever side of the argument one is on, some points are irrefutable, and as it seems to fall to me to summarise this debate, I shall briefly go through those points, if I may, for the House.
	The implications of the Bill are momentous. It will criminalise the practices of thousands of good people; it will destroy tens of thousands of jobs; and, on balance, it will not improve animal welfare for the horse, the hound or, indeed, the fox. The issues concerned are devilishly complex. The time given to consider the Bill is ridiculously inadequate. The Committee and Report stages on the Billa different Bill has been considered previouslyare to be excluded. Hon. Members' amendments will not be allowed. The Parliament Acts will be used. All those matters ride roughshod over our parliamentary procedures and our democracy.
	The motion is indeed an affront to our democracy. It is pandering to the worst and self-interested political manoeuvring of the Prime Minister. If the motion is approved, this will be a very bad daynot just for democracy, but for the Houseand it will result in flawed legislation. We should reject the motion and vote to uphold the reputation of the House.

Bob Ainsworth: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: amendment (n), in paragraph 2(2), leave out from 'any' to 'under' and insert 'Motions'.[Mr. Heald.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 157.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the Hunting Bill
	1. Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	2. At the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading
	(1) the Bill shall be treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment, and
	(2) the House shall proceed to consider any Motion standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 for a suggested amendment to the Bill.
	3. Proceedings on that Motion shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, three hours after their commencement (for which purpose the Speaker shall put only the Question on any amendment of the Motion selected by him and the Question on the Motion).
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading
	(1) may be taken immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion mentioned in paragraphs 2(2) and 3, and
	(2) shall be brought to a conclusion half an hour after their commencement.
	5. No motion may be made to recommit the Bill.
	6. In relation to the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 above
	(1) Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply,
	(2) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,
	(3) the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply,
	(4) the proceedings shall not be interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (and any such Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of such of the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 as are to be taken at the sitting concerned),
	(5) no dilatory motion may be made except by a Minister of the Crown,
	(6) the Question on any dilatory motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith, and
	(7) if the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended during the course of the proceedings, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown at the next sitting of the House varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	7. The Question on any Motion varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (whether by making provision about Lords messages or otherwise) shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Hunting Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This Bill is identical to the Bill to which this House gave a Third Reading on 9 July 2003. There will be a separate debate on the motion for the suggested amendment to defer commencement, so I shall not refer further to that issue at this stage.
	The House of Lords did not complete its proceedings on the Bill before the end of the previous Session, although it had the time to do so. The Government are now bringing the Bill back to enable this House, if it so chooses, to insist on the Bill and, if it is again rejected by the House of Lords, to pass it under the Parliament Act.

Douglas Hogg: In the programme motion debate, the right hon. Gentleman made an observation on two or three occasions that he may wish to amplify: he invited the other place to engage seriously on the Bill. That can be interpreted in at least two ways. Will he help us as to what exactly he meant? Did he mean only that we should accept the amendment in his name on the motion to be debated hereafter? Alternatively, was he inviting the House of Lords to table those considered amendments to the Bill that it deems to be right?

Alun Michael: I shall come to some of the things that the House of Lords might do in a moment. Throughout the proceedings on the last occasion, I consistently made the point that it was the job of the House of Lords, as a revising Chamber, to engage with the Bill that was sent to it by this place, to suggest amendments and to send it back. It is a matter of great regret that it failed to do that on the last occasion. It was wrong for it to do that, and it has provoked the likelihood, or the probability, of the use of the Parliament Act. It is no use trying to blame the majority in this House.

Lembit �pik: Does the Minister accept that there is another possible interpretation? Could it not be that their Lordships were so unhappy about the inadequacies of the Bill with which they had to deal that they sought to improve it? Surely, even if the Minister has a different view, he will accept that the upper House was entitled to suggest changes that it believed would make the Bill fairer and more workable. It was not a matter of principle on which the upper House offended the lower House; it was a matter of judgment involving the quality of a Bill that it was trying to improve.

Alun Michael: The House of Lords was perfectly entitled to try to improve the Bill, but it did not do so. All that it did was delay it.

James Gray: Does the Minister not accept that in the 12 hours for which the House of Lords was allowed to debate the Bill, and in the 28 amendments that it was allowed to debate out of 171 that had been tabled, its purpose was to turn the Bill back into something very similar to that originally proposed by him? That is what it was trying to do. It was trying to make the Minister's Bill come true, not the one wrecked by his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The House of Lords could have put back the provisions that this House had rejected. Indeed, numerous amendments were tabled that purported to return the clauses that were omitted when this House decided against the registration system and the tribunal system, but the Lords who tabled those amendments showed no sign of engaging with the real purpose of the registration provisions, let alone the clearly expressed concerns of a large majority in this House.
	In the event, the House of Lords discussed the Bill for two full days in Committee. During that time, it crawled through eight of the 60-odd groups of amendments that had been tabled. In those debates, it voted to render the Bill completely toothless, made the main offence impossible to prove, introduced a bias in favour of permitting hunting to continue and completely removed all controls over hare-coursing events. It then proceeded not to use the time available, and to send those amendments, draconian as they were, back to this House.

David Cameron: If on this occasion the House of Lords turns the Bill back into a measure for regulated hunting, pretty much along the lines originally suggested by the Minister, will he support it?

Alun Michael: It is not for me to decide; it is in the hands of the House of Commons. I simply say this: let us see the House of Lords behave democratically, and respond to the Bill that we sent it. Then we will take what it says seriously, and it will be for us to debate any proposition that it sends back to us.

David Cameron: The Minister is an individual. Presumably he has free will. He can make up his own mind. I am asking a question for him to answer, as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament, on a free vote. If the Bill came back as a measure for regulated hunting, would he support it?

Alun Michael: If the House of Lords sends back amendments that make sense and help to create good legislation, I will look at themas an individual. Let it do that, and then we shall see what it has done.
	I want to make three points about the operation of the Parliament Act. First, it is a matter for this House and Mr. Speaker to determine. Secondly, the key, indeed the only, purpose of the Act is to ensure that, in the event of a dispute between the two Houses, the will of this Housethe elected Chamberprevails. That is a simple proposition. We have procedures allowing for delay, for improvement and for reconciliation between the views of the two Chambers, but in the end, especially if there is obstruction, the constitutional principle is clear: the will of this elected Chamber must prevail. The Acts do not place a limit on when this House shall insist on its will, or on the measures involved. That is the point of judgment that we have been debating today. It is worth noting, however, that the royal commission on reform of the House of Lords did not propose any such changes either.
	My third point is that no Bill that has been subject to the Parliament Act in the past has been given a Committee stage the second time round. That did not even happen with the home rule and Welsh disestablishment Bills in 1913. Many of the red herrings that have been cast around in earlier debates should be put aside. What Members should do now is address the contents of the Bill itself, which is precisely the same as the Bill that was before the House last year.

James Paice: Will the Minister give an undertaking that if the House of Lords does what he urges and addresses the contents of the Bill that this House will send it later today, we shall be given an opportunity to consider whatever changes the Lords will have made? Or is he taking unto himself the decision on whether that should happen, and saying that eventually the Government will effectively decide whether to Parliament-Act the Bill or not?

Alun Michael: If the Lords amends the Bill and sends it back to us, I will approach their amendments with an open mind and consider whether they are serious ones. On the last occasion, their lordships passed amendments that were not serious but dissimulative, and they failed to send the Bill back to this House. It is they who, on the basis of the record, have to prove that they are behaving reasonably.
	Let me make one thing clear at the outset: this is a matter on which Members have a free vote, so it is entirely a House of Commons decision. I will be making the Government's position on the Bill clear, but on hunting the Government have always allowed Members a free vote. I shall briefly remind the House how we reached the current position on an issue that has taken up an enormous amount of parliamentary time over the years.

Andrew Robathan: How can the right hon. Gentleman say, on the front of the Bill, that in his view
	the provisions of the Hunting Bill are compatible with the Convention
	on human rights, given that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that they are not?

Alun Michael: The Joint Committee did not say that, as I have already made clear, and if the hon. Gentleman had been with us during an earlier debate he would have heard me deal with that point. He should read the Joint Committee's report rather than misrepresent it. I am sure that it was unintentional, but his comments were a misrepresentation.
	As I said, an enormous amount of parliamentary time has been spent on this issue over the years. Labour's 2001 election manifesto stated:
	The House of Commons elected in 1997 made clear its wish to ban foxhunting. The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the issue can be resolved.
	Of course, it is in an effort to resolve the issue that we are bringing the Bill back to the House today. It is important that we do so, as promised, during this Parliament.

David Chidgey: A moment ago

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The situation in Parliament square is getting out of control, people are being injured and things are very ugly indeed. The riot police are in action, police on horses are engaged, 2 ft police batons are drawn and are being brought down on people's heads and backs, and I have seen injured people. Can you approach the powers that be to see whether the House, even at this stage, can find a way to delay this debate to a better time[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Bob Spink: Can this debate be delayed to a better time, so that our procedures can be better served and we can improve public safety and deliver democracy?

Andrew Miller: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it not be outrageous if we allowed the democratic process to be disrupted by a handful of people who are unrepresentative of the people of this country?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As far as the disturbances taking place outside this House are concerned, I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will in due course receive a report from the authorities on what exactly is happening. On the second point, I am bound by the Order of the House and this debate will proceed. We have limited time, so I hope that it will be spent discussing the Bill and its Second Reading.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask Opposition Members to think very carefully indeed about the words that they use in this Chamber. I have for a long time counselled the leaders of the Countryside Alliance to persuade its members to appreciate that it is for Parliament to take a decision on a matter such as this, and that the law should be obeyed. Parliament should be obeyed, and I urge all Opposition Memberssome have made this point and agree with meto make it clear that they in no way encourage or condone violence or illegal behaviour, however strong the feelings might be of people on either side of this debate.

James Gray: I agree completely with the Minister and condemn without any hesitation any disgraceful actions that might be taken by anyone in Parliament square or anywhere else. Of course we must obey the law, and my party and I would be the first to condemn any such activities.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position so plain, especially as I know that when feelings run highhe himself has strong viewspeople can be tempted into other directions. He made an important point.
	Before the point of order, I was in the process of   giving way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).

David Chidgey: The Minister made the point that an inordinate amount of time had been spent debating this issue over the past few years. Perhaps he could help me, and many of my constituents who have raised this question. What important legislation, vital to this country's interests, has been delayed or abandoned because of the amount of time we have spentin this Parliament alonedebating this issue?

Alun Michael: We as a Government have been pulled both ways on this, because we think that the issue must be dealt with but we do not want other important measures to be delayed or interrupted. That is why we have taken this approach. Once the House of Commons had made up its mind, we sought to use the minimum of time today, to speed the legislation to the House of Lords and ask that House to take it seriously and amend it if their lordships wish. We need to get on with it

Linda Perham: rose

Alun Michael: just as I need to get on with my speech to allow others to speak. However, I shall give way briefly to my hon. Friend.

Linda Perham: On the importance of this issue and how long it is taking, there are lots of people out there, in cities as well as rural communities, who are deeply concerned. I had 300 letters in 1997 about this issue, and constituents across the political spectrum clearly care about animal cruelty, which is what we are talking about here today.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is quite right. I, too, have had a great deal of correspondence, on both sides of the debate. I have had many long letters that started by saying that we should not be spending time on this issue and then expressed the writer's views at great length. There is no inconsistency in that. The fact is that this is a minor matter compared with most of the issues that we deal with for our constituents, but it is a divisive issue on which people feel strongly, so it needs to be resolved, and that is why we gave an undertaking in our election manifesto to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.

Alan Beith: rose

Alun Michael: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman before trying to gallop through the rest of my speech to allow others to contribute.

Alan Beith: The Minister says that it is a minor matter, but he must bear it in mind that it is not minor to those whose livelihoods are affected and those who feel that their liberties are affected. It should not take up as much time as it has, but in their lives it is extremely important.

Alun Michael: Yes, indeed, as it is for many people who are affronted by the cruelty involved. Both sides feel passionately, as I just said, and feelings run high. Those who say that we should not spend time on this then go on to fill the Chamber and debate it at great length on both sides.

Lembit �pik: rose

Alun Michael: I will give way one last time, and then I must gallop on.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue, but the Minister referred to the cruelty involved in hunting with dogs. That is at the core of the debate. To date, I have understood that he has accepted that there is room for discussion about that. Presumably, he will now assure us that simply because his Bill has been usurped his views have not. I hope that he will confirm that he still feels that there was a case for having the two reasonableness tests.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should remember what I said in many of the debates that we have had together: I was convinced by all that I saw that most hunting, if not all, has little utility and involves more suffering than the alternative methods of dealing with the problem. There are exceptions, and I give the example of ratting, which we debated at great length in Committee. I proposed a system that would have allowed a tribunal to make a judgment on those cases in which people felt a case could be made. The House felt that that was not necessary because the matter was open and shut. I have to say that I think the number of cases that could have been made successfully was likely to have been extremely small, so the difference of opinion is a small one. That is the position that I have consistently set out since the Portcullis House hearings at which evidence was given.
	In seeking a resolution of this matter, the Government have been very patient. The Burns inquiry looked objectively at the issues and I followed it up in this Parliament by bringing all parties together to look again at the scope for agreement. I launched a wide-ranging consultation process, which culminated in the public hearings held at Portcullis House in September 2002.
	A lot of nonsense has been talked about the differences between the Bill that I introduced in December 2002 and the amended Bill passed by the House in July 2003. I have been able to deal with one of the alleged differences by responding to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). This Bill, like the one I originally introduced, will make hunting a wild mammal with dogs an offence, subject to exceptions; and it will include exceptions for stalking and flushing out, ratting, rabbiting and a number of other items in schedule 1 to the current Bill. It will make it an offence knowingly to permit land or dogs to be used for hunting; it will make hare coursing events illegal and make the same provisions for penalties, search and seizure, forfeiture and application to the Crown.
	The only difference is that my original Bill provided an additional provision that would have permitted hunting in strictly limited circumstances where the purpose was to meet a specific and real pest control need and where achieving that purpose would cause less suffering than other methods of pest control. A registration and tribunal system would have tested applications case by case.
	In response, the House made its wishes very clear. New clause 11, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) last June, was approved by 362 votes to 154that is, 70 per cent. of those voting wanted a complete ban on fox hunting. Put another way, 55 per cent. of all Members of the House, taking account of all who abstained or were absent, voted for the Bill as it stands today.
	I have compared that with the voting figures on the resolutions on 18 March 2002. On that occasion, with an even higher turnout, 58 per cent of Members of this House voted for a ban. The House has voted for a hunting ban with similar majorities on at least five occasions since 1997, all of which have been free votes. The House's views have been absolutely consistent.
	Let me turn to the history of last year's Bill in the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. Peers have a legitimate role in asking this House to think again about proposed legislation, even where this House has voted by such a large majority. Knowing the strongly held views in this House, their lordships had an opportunity to come up with proposals that might have encouraged second thoughts to look for a way towards a less polarised situation. I have already pointed out the record of failure to produce proper amendments in the other place.
	It has been suggested that the Government did not allow the Lords sufficient time in which to debate the Bill, so let us look at the facts again. The Government made two full days available, which was generous for a controversial Bill of this sizewith some 17 clauses. The Government offered more time if the Bill could be taken in Grand Committee. Ludicrously slow progress was made on amendments in Committee and the Lords voted to adjourn the debate when they knew that more time was available.
	In summary, both Houses have made their views known on this Bill perfectly clearly during debates in the last Session. This House plainly wants this Bill; the other place plainly does not. I still hope that peers will engage with the Hunting Bill. They will have adequate time to do so. If they fail to do so, the only way in which the matter can properly be resolved is for the will of this House to prevail under the provisions of the Parliament Acts.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister is explaining what happened in the other place, but does he agree that, in the light of what he has said, it would be wrong to say that their lordships sabotaged the previous Bill or acted out of kilter with what was expected of them? They did their best to try to improve the Bill and it is quite wrong to say that they sabotaged it.

Alun Michael: It is the hon. Gentleman who used the word sabotaged. I would not wish to be impolite to their lordships, but I have to say that that term lends itself to the description of events that took place on the last occasion. They did not seriously try to amend or improve the Bill before sending it back to us. They failed signally in their responsibility in that regard.
	There have been some fairly abstruse legal arguments to the effect that the Parliament Act 1949 was improperly passed and that Acts passed under it are invalid. I would like to kill that one off as well. The Government's clear legal advice is that those arguments are incorrect. There is no question about the validity of the 1911 and the 1949 Acts and there is no reason for this House not to act in accordance with their terms. It is a matter for the House of Commons at the end of the day.
	It was also alleged a few moments ago that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. I have certified that it is compatible with the convention, on the basis of clear legal advice. Contrary to what has been claimed, during the last Session the Joint Committee on Human Rights did not take the view that the Bill generally raised questions of compatibility, but it rightly examined the effects of a ban on people's ability to carry out contracts that they had already entered into in respect of hunting. The Government have looked carefully at the technical legal arguments raised by the Committee, and take the view that there can be no enforceable contractual right to carry out hunting after it has been banned. In practice, therefore, there is no human rights issue.
	It is therefore wrong to suggest that the Bill raises issues of human rights and the Government's view is clearthat any challenge to this bill on human rights grounds is likely to be unsuccessful. The fact that a challenge might be mounted in the courts is no reason not to use the Parliament Acts.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw the House's attention to the serious point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I believe that there are more hunts in my constituency than in any other. A substantial number of jobs will be lost in my area and elsewhere. This Bill will put people out of work, and other people will lose their property. Does the Minister consider it right that it offers no compensation? Is that compatible with human rights legislation, which ensures that people have the freedom to enjoy their property?

Alun Michael: Yes, I do believe that it is right for this Bill not to offer compensation, and that there is no conflict with human rights legislation. Again, I have encouraged the Countryside Alliance to start thinking about the likelihood of legislation, and to prepare the ground with its members and with people involved in hunts. I have suggested that people should look at the business opportunities that will arisefor example, under the fallen stock scheme that the Government are introducing this autumn, and as a result of changing to drag hunting, among other things.
	The Bill does not prevent people from using their property, but they will have to think sensibly about that. It is a pity that the leadership of the pro-hunting factions has been too narrow in its approach to this matter, and that it has failed to engage with the likelihood of legislation, even though the House has given sufficient warning. That is why, even at this stage, the Government are recommending further delay in commencement: we want to give time, after the Bill has reached the statute book, for common sense to be brought to bear. The pro-hunting leaders need to think about the employees to whom they have a responsibility.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will think again, as I am fed up with some of the unfounded allegations that are made. The Burns report and the evidence given in Portcullis House made it clear that the rural economy is generally vibrant, despite some weak points. There has been a greater increase in employment in rural areas than in urban areas.

Elliot Morley: There are labour shortages in many rural areas.

Alun Michael: As my hon. Friend says, there are labour shortages in many rural areas. We will use the normal channelsthe employment agencies, the Small Business Service and the regional development agenciesto help people and to advise them about how to make sure that they are gainfully employed in other activities. We are willing to care for the small numbers of people who will be affected by a hunting ban, but the matter should not be exaggerated.
	Finally, it has been suggested that if the Bill is passed under the Parliament Acts, many people who passionately oppose it will feel justified in continuing to hunt in defiance of the law because it has been passed unfairly or improperly. That argument turns democracy on its head. The rightness or wrongness of a piece of legislation is always the subject of argument, and our parliamentary processes are the means by which these issues are argued through. The Parliament Acts are part of that process, and of the structure of our democracy. Yes, they must be used sparingly and only under provocation, but it is axiomatic that the will of the elected Chamber must prevail in the end.
	In the democratic process, the role of the Opposition is important. The Conservative website states, in one place, that we should not spend time on hunting in the Chamber, but elsewhere says that the Conservative party would use parliamentary time to overturn a ban. There is no great consistency there. When the Opposition respond, I hope that we shall hear where the Conservative party stands and what it will doif and when it ever forms a Government. Will the Tories change the law? Will they overturn a ban, or will they not? Will they encourage their colleagues in the House of Lords to engage with the Bill this time, because they did not do so on the previous two occasions? Will they encourage supporters of hunting to respect the law? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for making his own position clear on that point a few moments ago, and a united message needs to go out from the House.
	We have had many requests from rural communities, and from the National Farmers Union, to tackle the pernicious activities associated with illegal hare coursing. That can be done only if we give the police the tools to do the job and change the basis of legal action from trespass, which is too limited to be able to deal with some of the people involved in this activity and in threats, intimidation and violence, to the activity of hare coursing itself. The Bill does both those things. We shall return to that point later, but it is not proposed that we delay commencement of that part of the Bill.
	I see that some people have signed a declaration that they will defy the law if the Bill is passed. The leaders of the Countryside Alliance should stamp out such ideas. I understand the strong feelings that some people have about hunting, but I reject utterly any suggestion that defiance of the law would be justified because the law has been passed under the Parliament Acts. The passage of legislation through this House has to be respected. The Parliament Acts are an integral part of our constitutional arrangements, and the House is entitled to use them to pass the Hunting Bill, if that is the House's will.
	Like many on my side of the House, I objected to a measure that really was unjustthe poll tax. I protested against it, but I disagreed passionately with those who advocated law-breaking or non-payment. Respect for the law and the decision of Parliament is bigger than any specific issue, including hunting. Indeed, it is bigger than any specific issue, evenperhaps especiallywhen feelings run as high as they do in this case. I commend the Hunting Bill to the House.

James Gray: Before I start my substantive remarks, I must say that for the second time this afternoon I find myself agreeing with the Minister. I hunt. If this disgraceful little Bill is passed, I will not break the law, or hunt until such time as an incoming Conservative Government turn the law round, which, to clarify the point that the Minister raised, we are committed to do. We are committed to introducing a Government Bill in Government time to repeal this Bill, albeit, of course and as always, with a free vote on both the Front and Back Benches. One of the first things that we will do when we come into power next May will be to reverse this disgraceful little Bill. I am pleased to say that that will happen in good time for me to start hunting again the following season. Like the Minister, however, I would not condone the breaking of the law, in this context or in the context of protesting against the disgraceful activities that we are seeing in the House this afternoon.
	The nation, and the world as a whole, will look at our procedures today with some amazement and horror. With the world in the state that it is in, with 1 million people waiting for treatment in the national health service, with Darfur

Claire Ward: rose

Kali Mountford: rose

James Gray: I shall give way in a moment; I have just started making a few introductory remarks.
	With the middle east and Iraq in turmoil, with Beslan and Darfur so much in our minds, people will not understand Labour's warped priorities and the Government's fixation with the sole issue of banning hunting with hounds. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) is enthusiastic, so I shall happily give way to her.

Claire Ward: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman rightly identified lots of pressing issues, on not just the domestic but the international scene. I am surprised, then, that he can sit those remarks alongside his remark a moment before that the very first priority of an incoming Conservative Government would be to use Government parliamentary time to reverse a ban. Surely a Conservative Government would not, as their first priority, spend time on reversing a hunting ban when they would have lots more to do.

James Gray: The hon. Lady misquotes me. I did not say that our first priority would be to reverse a hunting ban; one of our first priorities were the precise words I used. It seems to us that, since the Labour party is using such an extreme parliamentary procedure to have its will and impose its Islingtonian outlook on life on the people of Britain, we owe it to the countryside and the people of Britain to use similar tactics to reverse the ban. That is why we will do it. The Labour party is so fixated on banning hunting with hounds that it seems to us only reasonable and fair to give the House of Commons the opportunity to reverse the ban. It will, of course, be a free vote for both Front and Back Benchers, and it will therefore be dependent on us having a significant majority. I have every confidence that we will do so.

Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman has just suggested that we should not spend time on this Bill, but the shadow Leader of the House said earlier that we should spend tomorrow on it as welltwice as much time. Where is the consistency in that?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman and one or two others have sought to make what are, frankly, rather silly points. We are talking about the many hundreds of days that have been spent on the issue of fox hunting since the Labour party came to power seven years ago. We are talking about the hundreds of hours of police time that will be spent seeking to enforce the ban, if it comes in. The Home Secretary was reported in the newspapers on Sunday as saying that he would stick 30,000 CCTV cameras on trees to deal with the matter. That would be an astonishing waste of police time. All the time that the Labour party has forced us to spend on hunting with hounds has been a disgraceful waste of parliamentary time.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the representative on this issue of the Association of Chief Police Officers has said clearly that his expectation is that the time taken in enforcing a ban on hunting would be roughly equivalent to the police time that currently has to be devoted to protests against hunting? The police will, of course, police fairly, as they do now when hunting is legal, if and when hunting becomes illegal.

James Gray: If I may correct the Minister, I think I am right in saying that ACPO, in the form of Chief Superintendent Alastair McWhirter, has made it clear on several occasions that the police do not want a ban. [Interruption.] The Minister has made his point and we should get on[Interruption.]

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming

David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have witnessed the most disgraceful act of hooliganism in years directed against Members of this Chamber. It was a breach of privilege first and foremost. What steps will be taken to hold an investigation, which there must be, into that breach? For those thugs actually to come through the Chamber, despite all the security safeguards, is unknown, I am sure, since you have been here and, I imagine, since any other hon. Member has been hereindeed, such a breach was probably unknown throughout the 20th century. What investigation will take place? Will a report be made to the House, hopefully on Thursday morning?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House condemn the activities that have just occurred. It is appalling that such an incident could occur and there will need to be the very fullest possible inquiry into it. A wide-ranging security review has been taking place in the House and there is great concern about security, yet despite that, six individuals were able to enter the Chamber. Will you ask Mr. Speaker to start a full inquiry immediately?

Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that not since Charles I came to this House has there been such an invasion? Is it not appropriate that our security is not only enhanced but enhanced in such a way that such an event can never happen again?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand hon. Members' concern in view of the serious incident that has taken place, but equally I am aware that we are still discussing a very important issue. I should like to respond to the points of order and hope for the tolerance and understanding of other hon. Members who might have wanted to contribute to them.
	Hon. Members will be aware that a very serious incident has taken place. Mr. Speaker will be receiving reports of it from the Serjeant at Arms and security staff at the Palace. I can assure you that that investigation is under way.

Andrew MacKay: On a separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that there is now injury time because we already have a curtailed debate[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me hear the point of order.

Andrew MacKay: Is it possible for you to rule that the period of suspension be added to the period of debate on Second Reading?

Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If, in fact, injury time were to be added, it would show that those vagabondsthugshad defeated Parliament and forced us to amend a procedural motion that we have passed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the motion that the House passed, so there will be no additional time for the Second Reading debate. I ask hon. Members who wish to contribute in the time remaining to do so as briefly and concisely as possible. I call Mr. Gray.

James Gray: May I, first, entirely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and others about the disgraceful incident in the House earlier? It was an absolute scandal, and whoever they were and whatever argument they were trying to make, they lost it by making that protest. I lose no time in entirely condemning it. I have to say that in my time I have had some pretty sharp reactions to my speeches, but never one quite like that. I have to wonder whether it was something that I said. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who do not want to participate either by speaking or by listening to the contributions leave the Chamber so that we can continue?

James Gray: It is astonishing, is it not, that we are here today discussing an issue about which as recently as Question Time on 22 April the Minister said:
	In some of the big conversations in which I have taken part in rural areas, fox hunting has not come up as a major issue. People are concerned about big issues to do with employment, education, jobs and the economy.[Official Report, 22 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 431.]?
	The Minister must be aware that, in a poll conducted by NOP in April, 99 per cent. of Labour voters told the Government that they should concentrate on issues other than hunting. Even the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who feels so passionately about these matters, last year admitted:
	It is not a matter of great significance in the great cosmos of events or indeed of great significance in animal welfare, but it has become totemic.
	His point is that it has nothing to do with animal welfare; it has become totemic.
	Only two weeks ago the Prime Minister identified seven key challenges facing Britain. He said, memorably, that he would put every policy to a test, and ask:
	Does it, in practical terms, advance and improve the lives of Britain's hard-working families?
	Will the Minister now tell us how a ban on hunting will help Britain's hard-working families? Is this not an astonishing Bill in the sense that, irrespective of which side of the argument one may be on, one has to admit that it will not significantly improve the life of a single human being? Not a citizen of the United Kingdom will benefit from the ban on fox hunting, and although, of course, some people would argue that foxes might benefit, I would not necessarily agree. This is a peripheral issue by anybody's standards. Most people would say that they do not care one way or the other. On the extremities of the argument, there are some passionately in favour and some passionately against, but most of our constituents are saying to us, What on earth are you doing wasting time on an absurd and illiberal issue such as this?
	The leader in the Evening Standard, of all things, summed it up last week, when it said that the Prime Minister is using
	Labour's enormous Commons majority to torment a section of societyordinary country folkwhich they despise . . . There is something horrible, vindictive and cowardly about the Government's intolerant and ignorant attack on a small minority.
	That is the Evening Standarda London paper.
	We ask ourselves why the Prime Minister, who is normally so good at dodging round issues, has chosen to stick his neck out on this one. Is he concerned about animal welfare? Is he concerned about foxes? No. He is concerned about one thing, and one thing onlyparty management. He is concerned about the fact that he has had a terminal split with his next-door neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he is facing what can only be described as an extremely difficult party conference season. To buy off his rabid Back Benchers, he has chosen to do something in which he has no particular interest.

Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: The hon. Lady is now on her second intervention, and I will happily give way to her a second time, but I should warn her that two is not enough.

Claire Ward: I can probably help the hon. Gentleman with a clear answer on why we are trying to get this legislation through. The reason we have a large majority is that people voted for us, and many of those who voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 wanted fox hunting banned. We are doing what the people who voted for us want to be done, because the overwhelming majority of Labour supporters want fox hunting banned. That is the simple answer to his question.

James Gray: That is the dictatorship of the majority. The purpose of this House and of Parliament is not necessarily to drive through the will of the majorityor what the hon. Lady believes to be the majority, as the figures do not concur: 59 per cent. of all people say that they do not want fox hunting banned. But even if 59 per cent. of people were in favour of banning fox hunting, is that necessarily a reason to do it? Is she saying that if one can prove that more than 50 per cent. of people want us to do X, Y or Z, it is terribly important that we should do it? Surely most of what we do in this place is defending the rights of minoritieslooking after people who cannot speak for themselves, those who are eccentric, those who are different from Labour Members of Parliament, and those who are unusual or difficult. That, not doing what the majority want, is our primary task. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Please may we have some order during this debate?

James Gray: rose

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: I give way to my hon. Friend.

John Bercow: Speaking on behalf of the difficult, to whom my hon. Friend referred, may I put it to him that, in addition to the civil libertarian and countryside management arguments against a ban, it would also be regressive and discriminatory? Can he confirm that the effect of such a ban would be that, whereas wealthy people would simply go to Ireland or travel to parts of the continent to hunt, people of modest means would not be able to do so? It is a measure calculatedly directed against the poor who enjoy hunting.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point in his customarily colourful way. He is right to say that all kinds of different people go hunting

Desmond Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I shall finish my point first, if I may. Predominantly, it is ordinary people who go hunting and they will be unable to go to France or Ireland. One of the most bizarre things about the report into the re-homing of dogs that was recently produced by the all-party group on animal welfare was that it suggested that a possible solution to the 26,000 hounds that will be excess to our requirements is to export them to overseas hunts. Some of the rich people whom my hon. Friend describes would benefit from that, but very few of the ordinary people who go hunting.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: If I may, I want to get on to the main part of my speech[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend has substantial support from Labour Members

Ann Widdecombe: I am a minority of one.

James Gray: As my right hon. Friend says, she is a minority of one, at least on our Benches, so I happily give way to her.

Ann Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has continually asserted, as have others, that this is about suppressing minorities. I put it to him that being in a minority is not an absolute defence for anything. If we regard what that minority does as sufficiently cruel, it does not matter whether it is a majority or a minorityit is a fit subject for legislation.

James Gray: I refer my right hon. Friend to Lord Burns, who said with great clarity that there is nothing cruel about fox hunting. She would be right were she talking about bear baiting or other demonstrably cruel activities, where there might be a reason for ignoring the interests of the minority and dealing with it.
	Because of the disgraceful intervention earlier on, and because of my relative generosity in taking interventions during my speech, we are now extremely short of time to discuss the Second Reading of this very important Bill. I therefore give notice that I will seek to limit the number of interventions that I take, and that I may have to gallop through some of the important points that I want to make.
	The Secretary of State made it plain that she believes that an outright ban on hunting is unworkable. We agree and we should make it clear that we would be content with a licensing regime along the lines of that, albeit greatly changed, that the Minister proposed before his Back Benchers wrecked it. The Minister, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 May last year, stated:
	A complete ban . . . would be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty.
	On other occasions, he said that
	a measured view should be taken of this issue
	and that
	  The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence; on the principles of whether or not it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available.
	Shooting is the main alternative method that is currently available. The Bill does not ban killing foxes, mink or deer. Most observersincluding, I suspect, Labour observersaccept that at least the same number and probably more of those animals will be killed if hunting with dogs is banned. The debate is not therefore about whether they are killed or even how many are killed but about the means whereby they are killed.

David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the best assessment of the number of foxes who die or are killed is approximately 250,000 and that 15,000around 6 per cent.are killed by the hunt? It cannot therefore be called an effective method of controlling the fox population. More foxes die in road accidents.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a relatively sensible point, albeit an inaccurate one from a statistical standpoint. The figures are approximately 140,000 foxes in total, with around 40,000 being killed by organised hunting and the use of dogs. However, he is right that a relatively small percentage is killed by hunts. I shall make a counter-point: of the 40,000-odd foxes that are killed in organised fox hunting every year, the vast bulk are elderly or ill. They are mainly aged dog foxes because foxhounds are slow-moving animals, foxes are fast moving and therefore only the ill, the aged and the weak are killed using hounds. By contrast, if one is shooting, one is lamping and shoots whichever fox appears in the headlights. Shooting is an unselective method of killing foxes; fox hunting using dogs is selective. I appreciate that it is a debatable point, but, in our view, shooting, snaring, gassing or poisoning are much crueller methods than a simple killing using dogs.

David Burnside: Further to the point about the number of foxes that will be killed before or after a ban, does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of how many more thousands of foxes will die following the ban? Anybody who knows the farming community will appreciate that if foxes are not controlled by hunts and the rural community, there will be a massive killing of foxes by shooting, snaring and many illegal methods.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That happened when hunting was banned because of foot and mouth disease. Farmers had to kill an enormous number of foxes by shooting them. The National Farmers Union tells me that, last year, foxes killed 340,000 lambs. Surely a farmer will react to that by killing as many foxes as possible. We believe that the most humane and selective way of doing that is by using dogs.

Roger Williams: I have genuine concerns about the Government's favoured method of fox control, which is lamping. Given the tragedies that have happened this week and in the preceding months, would not it be a better idea for the Government to defer consideration of the measure until they had some idea of the number of people who would be killed and severely injured as a result of the Bill?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman refers to two episodes in which, tragically, people have been seriously injured or killed during lamping. Lamping occurs at night and it is therefore impossible to tell what eyes one is seeing and tragic accidents can happen. I stress that those two accidents were the exception, not the rule. A great deal of lamping goes on and accidents rarely occur. However, he makes the good point that, if lamping and shooting became the norm in the countryside, accidents are much more likely to occur. We must be aware of that risk.
	The Minister has acknowledged in the Bill the efficacy of using dogs for killing certain types of mammals. The Bill exempts the use of dogs for killing rats and rabbits and the Minister has said that the use of dogs in those circumstances is particularly useful. Will he answer one question on this point? If dogs are allowed to kill rabbits but, under the Bill, are not allowed to kill hares, by what means are they going to decide which is which? Are they going to have to stop for a moment and say to themselves, Hang on! Is that a rabbit? Is it a hare? Let's not get the wrong one. In any event, by admitting that dogs are most efficacious for killing rats and rabbits, the Minister has acknowledged that, in some circumstances, the use of dogs might be the best way of dealing with vermin. Our contention is that they are the best means of dealing with foxes.

Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend consider this scenario? If the local pack of hounds in my constituency, the West Norfolk foxhounds, decided to rebrand itself as the West Norfolk rabbit hounds, it would be able to carry on hunting in a pack and killing rabbits. Is it any less cruel to kill a rabbit than to kill a hare or a fox? Can my hon. Friend explain this ridiculous contradiction?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have not had the opportunity to discuss in Committee the question of intention in regard to hunting. We do not know who will be found guilty of hunting. If my hon. Friend's pack goes out after rabbits and accidentally kills a hare, by what mechanism will a judge decide whether that pack is guilty? These issues should have been decided in this place. We should not be leaving it to the courts and the judges to make up their minds on them.
	Some people oppose all forms of killing, and I rather respect that. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals probably represents a good body of them, and I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for West Ham is a vegetarian who does not approve of leather shoes and does not like the killing of animals in any circumstances. He is very strongly opposed to shooting, and I suspect that he is opposed to fishing

Tony Banks: No.

James Gray: Perhaps not fishing. If he is not against fishing, he is different from his friends in the RSPCA, who have acknowledged that, in addition to hunting, they now intend to deal with shooting and fishing as well. Its chief executive, Jackie Ballard, memorably stated recently:
	Game shooting is horrid and nasty . . . the RSPCA will get around to try to end this.
	I recently sent out a consultation paper on field sports to the RSPCA, among others, and its response stated:
	The RSPCA policy states that it is opposed to shooting for sport. Consequently, as an animal welfare organisation whose charitable objects include 'promoting kindness', that ethical viewpoint should be considered.
	On fishing, it stated:
	The RSPCA believes that current practices in angling involve the infliction of pain

David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise us whether the hon. Gentleman's speech has deviated from the topic under discussion? He is going on about shooting and fishing, which are not covered by the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We must now make progress. We have a limited amount of time left and I advise all hon. Members to concentrate on the subject under discussion.

James Gray: The point that I was makingclearly, I hopewas that the issue before us is not how animals are killed or how many are killed; it is about freedom and liberty. The truth is that, if the RSPCA can do this to us hunters, it can also do it to the shooters and fishers. It has made it absolutely plain that it is going to do so. It is dealing with hunting now; who comes next?
	All that we country people want is to live and let live. The preservation of tolerance and freedom should be one of the most fundamental duties of this Parliament, and that is all we ask. The Prime Minister recently said that justice, freedom and tolerance[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the House really should listen to this debate in silence. A great many members of the public are expecting us to deal with this matter with dignity, however great the passions involved, and we should do that.

James Gray: I fear that some hon. Members do not like what they are hearing.
	All that the people of the countryside are seeking is to live and let live. All that we want is tolerance and freedom. We want to make up our own minds as to whether the use of dogs in the countryside is reasonable. We are grown-ups; we can decide these things for ourselves, according to our own conscience. We do not need the Labour party to lay down the law on the use of dogs, or on shooting, fishing, smoking in public places and a whole variety of other things. We want the ability to make up our own mind on these matters, using our conscience and our knowledge of the countryside.

Stephen O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: I am seeking to wind up, if I may. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear last week that we shall seek to repeal this legislation when we come to power, albeit with a free vote for both Front Benchers and Back Benchers. That will give lovers of freedom and tolerance and lovers of the countryside, of whatever political persuasion, a very clear message: if they want to save hunting, they can do that by using every ounce of muscle, straining every sinew and spending every pound that may be necessary to hound this illiberal and hated Labour Government from office.
	The Minister is seeking to rush through this House a Bill that he has attacked in the most scathing terms, a Bill created by rebellious Back Benchers, which is neither a manifesto commitment nor mentioned in the Queen's Speech, nor compliant with the Human Rights Act. It is a Bill for which there is little real demand in the country, and its claimed animal welfare benefits are illusory to say the least. It is a legal mess, and will need huge amendment, which I hope that the other place will give it.
	The threatened use of the Parliament Act under those conditions is a constitutional scandal of the worst kind, which brings Parliament into disrepute and makes the Minister and his party look both desperate and a laughing stock in the eyes of the public. This is an intolerant, ignorant and prejudiced Bill. It is an affront to liberal democracy. It will stir the heart of every citizen who values liberty. The people of this country, and of the countryside, will neither tolerate nor forget it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members of what is painfully obvious: little time is left. An eight-minute limit will apply to Back-Bench speeches from now on.

Gerald Kaufman: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) telling the Minister that it was his Bill. That is the most significant aspect of the legislation that we are debating this evening: 34 years after I came into the House, with a succession of private Members' Bills seeking to ban hunting with dogs, we have for the first timethis is an historic momenta Government Bill to ban hunting with dogs.
	The hon. Member for North Wiltshire completely misunderstands the Parliament Act. To us, it is a very important sign of advance that this is a Government Bill, but the Parliament Act has nothing to do with whether a Bill is sponsored by the Government. Put simply, it is a measure that says that, in the end, the will of the House of Commons must prevail. Were it still a private Member's Bill, as introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), the Parliament Act would have the right to prevail.
	I offer the House two explanations, one of which relates to amendment (b), which I have tabled to the Government's suggested amendments. If the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is carried, my amendment would fall anyway. In any case, I would not move it, as I believe that what is important about today is that the majority of the House of Commons comes together in favour of an outright ban on hunting with dogs.
	The other personal explanation is that at sundown tonight7.3 pmthe Jewish new year begins, so I shall take part in proceedings up to the time when I must get to the synagogue, but I must leave in time to do that. I hope that the House of Commons will accept that. That means, of course, that I shall be able to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
	We have had all sorts of arguments over these 34 years and longermy hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was a pioneer with the attempt to ban hare coursing, and this must be a great day for him. What is clear, and what belies the hon. Member for North Wiltshire's argument, is that during all the 34 years in which I have attempted to bring about this ban, there has never been a campaign to ban shooting or fishing. Therefore, the idea that this is the thin end of some wedge is not accurate, and it is wrong, false and misleading to propagate it.

Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Time is limited and I would prefer to proceed.
	This campaign is comparable to a campaign that took up the first 35 years of the 19th century: the campaign to ban bull baiting. It took this House 35 years to achieve that, and it will have taken 34 years of my parliamentary experience to achieve this. For that, I am willing to accept a slight delay, much though I would have preferred it not to happen.
	Throughout the progress of this legislation, we have heard all kinds of bogus arguments about its effects. While I respect Opposition Members who support the Bill, predominantly the Labour party wants it and a number of Conservatives do not. I find it extraordinary that a party that threw a quarter of a million miners out of workwith no Countryside Alliance to march in support of them, and with none of the compensation for which Members ask nowcan say that some kind of vengeful act is involved in legislation that will deprive just a few hundred people of direct employment at a time when the country has the highest employment and the lowest unemployment for 30 years. That is absurd, as is the argument about the dogs.
	Everyone who knows about hunting knows that any dog in a hunting pack has a limited life. As soon as that dog no longer serves its purpose as part of a hunting pack, it is shot dead by these animal-loving huntsmen and huntswomen. The idea that somehow the Bill will produce a kind of canine carnage is ridiculous. It is the huntspeople who breed these dogs for one purpose and one purpose only, and who, when that purpose has been fulfilled, dispose of them in an utterly callous wayso let us not hear the animal welfare argument.
	What we are approaching today is the fulfilment of two Labour party manifesto pledges, which will have been fulfilled only after two Parliaments andif this amendment is acceptedanother half-Parliament. No one can say that Parliament has been rushed into this. No one can say that this ban will have been implemented without the fullest, most elongated debate that I can remember taking place on any issue during the 34 years for which I have served the House.
	For me, this is a great day. This is a vote against cruelty, callousness and the hunting and, literally, hounding of animals for sport and pleasure. That is wrong, and at last we are going to stop it.

Andrew George: I am aware of the time and will do my best to keep my remarks short.
	I am sorry that we have to be back here again to rehearse arguments that we have already had. In this debate, however, we need to consider whether any additional, indisputable wisdom has emanated from another placewhether we have been advised that we may have missed something in a previous debate that might be helpful to us.
	Reading the report of the debate in the other place, I see a great deal of opinion dressed up as fact. There is, for instance, the justification for hunting. Lord Renton said:
	Sometimes I have seen foxes in the prime of life being chased with what looked to me like a grin on their face.
	I thought it was just the anti-hunters who were supposed to be anthropomorphic. Lord Renton went on:
	I do not think that they minded being chased.[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 149.]
	There is one justification from their lordships.
	Here is another justification, from Baroness Strange:
	I went coursing often as a child. Unlike my noble Friend Lord Faulkner, I have never been unlucky enough to see a hare killed. However, I admired how the hares ran and very much admired the dogs.[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 203.]
	I can imagine how admirable that is. Look at that hare running. How admirableit is running for its life.
	In addition to looking for justification for hunting from their lordships, I have tried to establish whether they understand our primary motivation in reaching the conclusions that we have reached. They say that
	all . . . scientific evidence has been abandoned in a capitulation to zealotry and class prejudice.
	Apparently, we believe
	the fantasy that the fox is a cuddly and harmless little furry animal.
	We are also told:
	We know all too well that for many Members in the other place, it is primarily a manifestation of class envy and dislike of toffs dressed up and on horseback.[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 783825.]
	And a bishop offered a rather un-Christian view when he accused MPs who support a ban of having a mental disorder. That was the nature of the debate in the other place.
	The issue of liberty has been raised on a number of occasions. I come from the countryside and I have to question the position of those who say that they are on a march representing the countryside, and that the countryside supports hunting. In some areas, perhaps a majority do; in others, perhaps that is the minority view. It is not for me to judge, but I have listened to the arguments.
	We have heard about the problems, challenges and pressures that this Bill will clearly create for the minority who enjoy hunting, but there are other minorities in rural areas, one of which is displeased by hunting. The Lords have told us that, as many have said today, liberty is the primary concern, but it is not just those who enjoy hunting who have the right to libertyyet one gets the impression from reading their lordships' views that no one else matters.
	Sometimes, liberties clash. There is the clash between those who derive pleasure from hunting and those who derive displeasure. What about the liberties of those who were born and brought up in the countryside, who know country wayswho know about foxes and other wildlifeand are proud of their parish and landscape, but who are offended by fox hunting whenever hunts come to their area? Are their liberties also taken into account? Of course, it is not just a question of liberties in relation to land. Often, those who own the land feel that it is up to them to decide what happens on it. Many of those who live in the countryside do not own much land, but they are entitled to have a view and to have their feelings about how the countryside should be managed taken into account. [Interruption.] Despite what Members might say from a sedentary position, those who own the land are merely custodians of it in the longer run.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman talks about liberty. Would he care to comment on the constituent of mine who feels that he is helping liberty to flourish in Iraq by serving with 40 Commando? This gentleman has served our country valiantly trying to safeguard liberty, but when he returns he will discover that he is unable to participate in the hunting that he has pursued all his life. Does the hon. Gentleman think that fair?

Andrew George: Regardless of whether someone serving their country supports hunting, the fact is that the Housedemocracywill ultimately decide whether the Bill should be enacted. I am sure that many who serve our country do not support fox hunting. Are we to listen only to the hon. Gentleman's constituent or to others who want to defend the liberties of those who are displeased by hunting in their parish?

Alan Beith: As a Liberal, I am a bit worried by my hon. Friend's use of the word displeased. I am displeased by lots of things, but I do not feel morally entitled to use the law to ban them. I need a stronger argument. I need to be convinced that there is serious cruelty that would be avoided by a ban. I am certainly not convinced by any of the alternative methods. Surely he is not erecting displeasure as a reason for sending other people to prison.

Andrew George: Some people who live in the countryside take pleasure from hunting and others are offended by it. A message is being sent out about how their community is represented, and suggesting to young people that this is a proper and acceptable way of behaving. My right hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that there is an argument for defending the liberties of one group over those of another, and I am not saying that a person's wish not to have hunting in their area is a pre-eminent freedom over that of those who want to have their pleasure from hunting, but we have to make the judgment on the arguments here.
	It has been said that those who go hunting will be criminalised by the Bill. Many speakers in another place supported that argument. The fact is not that the Bill will criminalise people who enjoy hunting, but that those people who choose to break the law will criminalise themselves. Many of the 50,000 or so people who have signed a petition saying that they will break the law and continue hunting are responsible peoplesome of those in another place implied that they might be prepared to go so farbut what message does that send to animal rights activists? Does it not offer support for all those who wish to break the law in their own cause?
	We have to weigh up the issues and come to our own conclusions, but the House has already spent hundreds of hours on this and come to its decision, with clear majorities, and it is time to send a clear message to the other place that it must accept the democratic will of the democratic and pre-eminent Chamber.

Kevin McNamara: I declare an interest, in that I have for many years been a vice-president and patron of the League Against Cruel Sports, which I congratulate on having protested against the cruelty of hunting with dogs and many other barbarities long before many other organisations. I welcome on board the RSPCA, which did not support us when we first started our campaign, as well as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and others.
	This is the end of my parliamentary career. When I started it in the 1960s, we began our campaign against hunting, and I am pleased that the matter will now be resolved once and for all. I take this opportunity to pay a compliment to those colleagues, some dead, some in the House of Lordsperhaps it is the same thingwho played a part, including Eric Heffer, John Ellis, Lord Corbett and others. In very difficult times, they first pushed on hare coursing and then got the whole country behind them in opposing hunting with dogs in any shape or form.
	It has been said that all this has been done to appease Back Benchers. If so, I am glad that the Government are doing it and I hope that it will be regarded as a precedent that they will follow on many future occasions. Far more important is the fact that passing the Bill will help to restore people's faith in Parliament. When the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was not given extra time by the Government, people said that Parliament had a chance and that the Government funked it. People did not understand the subtleties of the Government's argument. They felt that they had supported the Government on this issue in the important election of 1997 and had been betrayed. Since the intention to bring in the Parliament Act to pass this measure was announced, many of the phone calls and letters that I have received have posed the question, Do they really mean it? Let us hope that the Government really mean it, because that will help to restore the country's faith in the work of Parliament.
	I want to make two fairly brief points. First, it is often said that we do not understand what is going on. Those who have attended hare coursing meetings, as I did in the east of England with my late colleague Arnold Shaw more than 30 years ago, have seen hares torn to pieces by hounds and heard them screaming. Collateral damage, I understand, is the phrase used for the points earned by the greyhoundsit is cruel, harsh and evil.
	Secondly, I want to draw a contrast. In that particular case, hounds are trained for their speed, whereas in fox hunting, as we have heard today, they are trained for their stamina. It is not a question of quick and easy pest control or getting rid of the fox by a sharp swift hound going in and carrying out its job. It is a question of the sport entailed. That is the distinction. It is not a class distinction between town and countryside; it is a question of understanding how we use or abuse animals.
	Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I am not a vegetarian. I am not opposed to using some animals in experiments, if necessary, to develop drugs to protect and enhance the life of humankind, though I have severe reservations about the way in which some drug companies go about it. As a principle, I am not against that, but I am against gratuitous cruelty, the ending of which is what the Bill is all about. I congratulate the Government on doing a very good job on this matter this time.

James Paice: Let me start by saying that I wholly condemn violence from wherever and whomever it comes. I also condemn anyone who seeks to disrupt the proceedings in this Chamber. I want to make it absolutely clear that my party and I take that view. I do not believe that those who have disrupted our proceedings this afternoon are any more representative of hunt supporters than the violent end of those who seek to oppose hunting are representative of hunt opponents.
	I believe that this is a sad day for this country, not just because of hunting, but because of issues that are more fundamental. I refer to the fundamental and historic virtues of tolerance and respect for minorities. The debate is the consequence of the Government's determination to contradict the clear evidence of their own advisers through the Burns inquiry and the Portcullis House hearings.
	For generations, Labour MPs have urged us in this place, often quite rightly, to respect the rights, freedoms, cultures and even sexual practices of different races and religions. Here, however, they want to go much further. We are a tolerant country. We accept in our society people with many conflicting views who carry out different activities, some of which we may not like. It is not a crime to live in Britain and to plot the overthrow of the Government of another country. We allow the freedom of speech of those who try to overthrow even our own democracy. We permit peaceful demonstrations by countless minorities, however much they disrupt the normal life of other people. Those are all features of a just, tolerant and pluralistic society, of which we should be proud and which we should seek to maintain. However, this Bill is totally contrary to those values. It will criminalise the activities of a small number of people who, in every other aspect of life, are valued members of our community. They include doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen, business people, farmers and many others.
	Whatever public opinion may be, in the history of this House there have been many occasions when hon. Members quite rightly have stood back and viewed an issue objectively, and when they have said that the House must not necessarily respond to public opinion and be pressurised by it. One of the starkest examples of that was the question of capital punishment. For decades after its abolition, there was no doubt about where public opinion lay, despite repeated votes in the House that such punishment should not take place.
	The consequences of this Bill are quite clear. In numerical terms, it will not save the life of a single animal, and that brings me to a crucial point: the distinction between the welfare of an individual animal and that of the species. The desire to protect one animal from one form of death is understandable, but the Bill will damage the welfare of the species. That was demonstrated over and again in the evidence given to the Burns inquiry, and in the conclusions that the inquiry reached.
	I come now to what I believe is the fundamental point to be made about this debate. Many people, both in the House and outside it, oppose hunting, and I readily accept that their number includes many of my constituents. As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said a few moments ago, those people believe hunting to be cruel, and they consider it wrong for people to gain pleasure from what is perceived to be cruel.
	That is a perfectly honourable position, but I want to make two points to counter it. First, if it is the alleged cruelty of hunting that attracts its followers, they will often be sorely disappointed, because the reality is that few hunt followers ever see the kill, and the vast majority of those involved in a hunt are hundreds of yards behind when the hounds catch up with the fox.
	Secondly, and more importantly, the evidence given to the Government and the conclusions of the Burns inquiry make it clear that there will be no overall reduction in animal suffering, nor in the cruelty that some people believe takes place. That brings us to the fundamental question: should this House decide what may give people pleasure, if that does no damage to others and if it is not to their detriment? Should we decide what is good for people's souls? I believe that we should not.
	If there were clear evidence that banning hunting would markedly reduce animal suffering, the Bill would be justified, but there is no such evidence. No animal will be saved and no human being will gain from a ban. We will be sacrificing the fundamental values of freedom, choice, liberty and tolerance that generations of our predecessors in this House have nurtured and cherished.
	If we diminish those values on this issue, who knows what will be next? Whose freedoms will next be diminished? I urge the House to pause before it turns against a minority just because it disagrees with it.

Elliot Morley: I begin by welcoming the very firm comments that Opposition Members have made about the need to respect the rule of law and the democratic process, including the democratic processes of this House. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) made some important points about people who think that they can pick and choose when it comes to obeying the law.
	In the debate, hon. Members have said that there are more pressing issues on which to legislate, and that this is not an issue for Parliament. It has been stated that a ban would set supporters of the sport against its opponents, that sufficient laws already exist to prevent abuse and that minority rights must be considered along with the sport's social value. It was even stated that hunted animals derive pleasure from the activityalthough similar remarks were made when the abolition of bull baiting was debated in this House in the 1800s. It seems that the arguments about blood sports have been aired not just in the lifetime of this Parliament, but for nearly 200 years.

David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Elliot Morley: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not as I have agreed to cut my reply to just five minutes to allow maximum participation for hon. Members.
	I want to make points on two important issues: minorities and democracy. I concede that the rights of minorities are important, and that majority views are not always correct. I would still oppose hunting with hounds if I were in a minority, but I do not believe that I am in this country. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it is not rational always to take into account minority views, whatever they are, without being able to override them depending on the situation at the time, the views of society and attitudes that change over time. On occasion, a judgment must be made. This is a moral issue, as is reflected in the fact that we have a free vote.
	It is nonsense to suggest that this is an attack on rural society, or that every single person who lives in the country cares passionately for hunting or supports it. We need to take into account the fact that there are people in the countryside who have raised strong views against it, as my hon. Friends have stated. As far as democracy is concerned, this was a manifesto commitment, and it reflects the will of the House in a number of votes with very substantial majorities. The issue has, of course, been debated since 1945.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who have campaigned for a long time on the issue. Not least, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the countryside, who has been incredibly patient and has tried to bring both sides together to ensure that everybody had the opportunity to make their points.
	It is nonsense to say of this debate that views have not been taken into account on the many issues. When we talk about minorities, I should say that there are people such as Eric Ashby, who suffered terribly in relation to the activities of fox hunts, and who was a minority in the area. He was awarded an MBE for his work with wildlife, and I am only sorry that he is not alive today to see this moment, for which he campaigned all his life.
	This issue has been debated many times. Nothing new has been raised today. This is about the kind of society we live in. What we have seen outside the House as people have attacked and abused the police and abused the democratic history of this House demonstrates that it is true that a minority of peopleI would not claim that they speak for all hunt supporterscare little for animals and little for people today.
	We have heard about affronts. If there has been an affront, it is the affront that the Parliament Acts have had to be used because an unrepresentative, unelected and unaccountable House of Lords is clearly prepared to ignore the results of a free vote of the elected House on a manifesto commitment by an elected Government. If there is an affront, it is an affront that it has taken until four years into the 21st century to end an activity that comes down to inflicting prolonged pain and stress on animals for no other reason than the entertainment of their tormentors.
	This debate has gone on long enough. The people have spoken. Now is the time to act.

Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 356, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Bill, according to Order [this day], was treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will obviously understand that there is grave concern in all parts of the House at the unprecedented events that took place this afternoon, and I wonder whether you can tell the House anything about them now.

Mr. Speaker: I am gravely concerned about the situation, as indeed the whole House is. Immediately I received word that the incident had happened, I instructed the Serjeant at Arms to bring extra security into the House. Unfortunately, the Public Gallery has had to be cleared. What I intend to do is this: immediately after leaving the Chair, which will be at about quarter-past 6, I will have a meeting with Sir Michael Cummins, our Serjeant at Arms, and I will report back to the House as soon as I can.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is part of your intention to reopen the Public Gallery if at all possible?

Mr. Speaker: It saddens me that no one is in the Public GalleryI feel as strongly about that as the right hon. and learned Gentlemanbut the safety of Members and the security of the House must be uppermost in my mind.

Ann Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share your concern about security in the House, but I wonder whether you and the authorities will consider the fact that the House has returned while much of it is like a building site and whether that was a wise decision, as that may well have played a part in the lapse of security this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks me to speculate. As I told her, I will have a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms as soon as I leave the Chair. I add that I have already had a meeting with him, and I will therefore report back to the House as soon as I can.

Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay proceedings, but may I put to you what I think is in the minds of a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House? First, I trust that, in dealing with the people who got on to the Floor of the House, it will not be treated as some trivial incident for which they can be interviewed and released. It is much more serious than that. Secondly, I take it that, during your investigation, you will seek to ascertain whether any staff of hon. Members or othersI am sure not staff of the House or Memberswere involved in assisting those people in gaining entry.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a trivial matter, and I will not speculate on any connection with members of staff. After all, I am seeking a report from the Officer who is responsible for security, and my first priority then is to come back to the House.

Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the great difficulty that you, Sir, and Members have is in seeking to balance security needs with free and open access to the Palace of Westminster for our constituents and our citizens? Will you confirm that there is a deep review of security with the Metropolitan police and the security services? When the recommendations from that review are made, the House should speedily implement them and vote for the appropriate expenditure.

Mr. Speaker: I will not make mention of any security review, particularly at this stage.
	Commons' suggested amendments, considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have imposed a limit of eight minutes per Back Bencher for the following business.

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
	That, pursuant to section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911, this House suggests to the Lords the following Amendment to the Hunting Bill
	Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause
	'Commencement
	(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which it is passed
	(a) sections 1 to 4,
	(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,
	(c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,
	(d) Schedule 1, and
	(e) Schedules 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
	(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed
	(a) section 5,
	(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,
	(c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and
	(d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
	It may be helpful if I indicate that I am happy to accept the sensible amendment that will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to vote for it and the substantive motion.
	The motion will defer the commencement of the ban on hunting with dogs from the three months after Royal Assent currently in the Bill. The amendment would provide the specific date of 31 July 2006. The commencement of the ban on hare coursing will remain at three months. The motion is expressed as an amendment for the House to suggest to the other place because of the requirements of the Parliament Acts, and I shall return to that point shortly.
	There are many persuasive reasons for deferring the commencement of the ban on hunting. In particular, it will give more time for those engaged in hunting to adjust to life after it. There are important animal welfare considerations for dogs and horses, as well as the wild animals that are hunted. The amendment would help by allowing time for hunters to put in place humane arrangements, such as dispersal and re-homing, for the dogs used in hunting. Such dogs are usually shot when they are no longer needed, but the extra time for implementation will ensure that there is even less reason for any suffering to be caused to them because of the ban. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has offered help with re-homing houndsan offer for which I am very gratefulbased on its experience of re-homing a considerable number of greyhounds every year.
	The Burns committee estimated that, at the most, perhaps 6,000 to 8,000 jobs across England and Wales were linked to hunting, directly or indirectly, and that that was almost invisible in national economic terms, but the delay will have a number of consequences. It will allow businesses that are reliant on hunting more time to refocus and diversify, for example, into drag hunting or dealing with fallen stock. The horse industry in general is buoyant and provides many business opportunities. The delay will allow hunt employees more time to find new jobs. Given the success of the Government's economic strategy generally, jobs in most rural areas are readily available, as are opportunities for retraining. The delay will allow those who regard hunting as a method of pest control more time to put in place other pest control methods.
	The Bill is likely to receive Royal Assent in November this year, so under the motion the ban on hunting will come into force during November 2006. My hon. Friend's amendment would substitute that with 31 July 2006. That alteration would not in any real way reduce the important benefits of deferral that I have just described. However, it will have the advantage of ensuring that the ban will come into force before the start of the main 200607 hunting season. It will mean that the winter of 200506 will be the last hunting season and that there will be no hunting after that. Among other things, it will prevent a further season of the cruelty of cub hunting in autumn 2006. Allowing hunting at the start of the 200607 season would divert the attention of hunts from the need to plan ahead and get on with the job of changing their arrangements after the 200506 season has finished. Those important considerations are why I am glad to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend.

Lady Hermon: As someone who feels passionately about the welfare of greyhounds, I have listened as calmly and patiently as possible to the lengthy explanation of why the implementation of the ban on hunting will be delayed. However, the Minister made it clear that the ban on hare coursing will be immediate. What provisions and assistancefinancial or otherwisewill be given to the owners of greyhounds that might have participated in hare coursing?

Alun Michael: I made it clear earlier, although the hon. Lady might not have heard that part of our discussions, that we do not believe that the same animal welfare concerns arise for dogs involved in hare coursing as for packs of hounds that are held by hunts, so the same considerations do not apply. I also strongly and clearly made the point that this country faces major problems due to illegal hare coursing and the fact that there is a need to change the basis of the prosecution of people who are involved in that activity, and its associated intimidation, violence and vandalism, from trespass to the activity of hare coursing itself. The trespass option does not give the police the tools to do their job, and we have made it clear that the measure is an important part of the Bill. That explains why the suggested amendment will not defer the commencement of the ban on hare coursing events, which will continue to come into effect three months after enactment.
	Although hunting with dogs might make a contributionhowever smallto pest control, hare coursing events have no such justification. Although some hares are killed, the purpose of the activity is to bet on the competitive performance of dogs. There is no suggestion whatever that a ban on hare coursing events will mean that any dogs will have to be destroyed or re-homed, and I do not know of any significant evidence that many rural people or businesses are economically reliant on hare coursing events.

David Burnside: Will the Minister enlighten the House by estimating how many more foxes he expects to survive during the delay to the ban on hunting with hounds? How many more foxes does he expect to be killed by other means of control during that period?

Alun Michael: Yet again, one must go back to questions that have been answered in the past. The number of foxes killed is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that foxes are killed as pests. A fairly small number are killed by hunts, but more are killed by lamping and other methods. Additionally, a minute number of deer are killed by hunts while large numbers are killed by stalking and shooting, so deer hunting is a completely unnecessary activity. Whether the number of foxes killed goes up or down is irrelevant to the Bill.
	An even more important consideration about hare coursing is the fact that the violence and intimidation associated with illegal coursing events causes a real and pressing problem in many parts of the countryside. We have received many representations asking us to take firm and speedy action to enable the police to tackle the evils associated with such activities. That can be done only if the nature of the relevant offences is changed from trespassing to the activity of hare coursing itself, which clause 5 will achieve. There can be no justification for any further delay to giving police the powers that they need to crack down on the criminals involved.
	Today's events outside, and even inside, the Chamber have raised serious questions of law and order, so I repeat a plea to leaders of the Countryside Alliance and any other organisations concerned with these issues that I have made on many occasions. They should start preparing their supporters to obey the law and to consider alternatives, such as drag hunting and fallen stock dispersal. They should show the respect for the law that, in fairness, was displayed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) when he said that although he would seek to overturn any hunting ban that became law, he would do so while obeying the law and try to achieve that using the ballot box and the House's processes. I was pleased that he said that because he showed respect for the House. I challenge people such as the leaders of the Countryside Alliance to show that same respect for the law. They do no favours to their supporters by failing to give a similar lead or by appearing to encourage illegal activities, although I hope that they do not intend to do that.

David Winnick: rose

James Gray: rose

Alun Michael: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and then the hon. Member for North Wiltshire.

David Winnick: I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend says. All of uscertainly mehave been involved in peaceful protest over the years, which is part of parliamentary democracy. Is he aware that some of the more hooligan elements of the demonstration are shouting out remarks such as, We know where you live, while referring to him? Such intimidation is totally unacceptable, as is trying to deny the House of Commons the right to debate the matter and reach a conclusion. Surely we should expect the Countryside Alliance to dissociate itself from such hooligan and fascist elements.

Alun Michael: Indeed, I hope that the Countryside Alliance will do that because I know that decent people are involved in it, such as its chairman, John Jackson, whom I have known for a long timehe is an extremely decent men. I hope that other leading members will give him the assistance to dissociate the Countryside Alliance from such activities and to encourage its supporters to understand the strength of feeling on the other side of the debate as well as their strong views.

James Gray: I cannot speak for the Countryside Alliance because it is a private organisation, although I am a member of it. It has made it clear many times in written submissions and through other forms that it entirely decries any activities that are not legal, lawful, peaceful or sensible. I hope that I can speak for its leaders by saying that they would certainly abhor the disgraceful scene in the Chamber earlier today and the small number of scuffles, which the police tell me are minor, involving people outside Parliament. I hope that the Countryside Alliance and I can speak together in saying that we entirely decry such behaviour.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I respect what he said and the tone in which he made his point.

Hugo Swire: While we are on the subject of intimidation, the Minister will have seen from this morning's newspapers that Oxford university is asking for more help to combat the ever increasing problem of so-called animal rights activists. When will the Government take that problem more seriously? People throughout the country who work for Huntingdon Life Sciences and other organisations have been intimidated for years and their houses have been picketed, but the Government have yet to respond.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of tackling those people, but wrong that the Government have done nothing. As a former Home Office Minister, I know that the Government have taken the matter increasingly seriously. We have made it absolutely clear that such intimidation is unacceptable and that it represents nasty lawbreaking. People are trying to interfere with the processes that should be dealt with by the House rather than through such activities, as several people have said. There are ways in which people may make their protest known within the law and without undue intimidation, as many of us have done over the years. That is right in a democratic society, but such a society must make it clear that there is a limit to such activity.

Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps not surprising that we are witnessing such scenes given that last week the parliamentary sketch writer of the Daily Mail, who holds a pass for the House of Commons, recommended in his column that the homes and offices of hon. Members should be attacked?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Journalists, too, must take responsibility for saying things that could appear to encourage or condone illegal activities, especially in comment columns. We must all be careful about what we say when we encourage people on matters that are associated with strong views.

Andrew George: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about commencement dates. Other matters should have been discussed on Second Reading. We must confine ourselves to commencement dates because we are debating a suggested amendment.

Andrew George: In respect of the commencement date and the reassuring comments by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), is the Minister aware that on 5 September the Countryside Alliance apparently made a statement, reported on the BBC websiteperhaps incorrectlyas:
	Fifty thousand people have signed a petition saying they would be prepared to break the law if a ban was introduced and they would be prepared to face the consequences?
	I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman dissociated himself from such action and it would help to have that clarified.

Alun Michael: It is not for me, any more than it is for the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, to clarify the views of the Countryside Alliance, but the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) makes an important point. By going for the delay in commencement, the motion provides, beyond all doubt, extra time for people to behave reasonably in accepting the will of the House. It is not an unimportant consideration. I regret the threats of illegal action and protest by some hunt supporters. I understand that some people have dissociated themselves from those views. The Government have condemned such threats and believe that most people involved are law abiding and are prepared to respect the will of Parliament. The extra time for implementation provided by the suggested amendment will make it even clearer that illegal actions and threats or intimidation are totally unjustified. If people want to continue their opposition to the Bill, they have the option of expressing their views through the ballot box. I hope that the leaders of the Countryside Alliance will make their position clear.

Gregory Barker: There is a long history of political protest in this country on both sides of the political equation. Does the Minister believe that there are any circumstances under which civil disobedience should be tolerated?

Alun Michael: It would not be right to extend the debate into philosophical issues of whether such action can ever be justified. I can say, however, that there is no such justification in relation to this Bill, especially if we allow the additional time suggested. I hope that the House of Lords will also give the suggestion serious consideration.

Ann Widdecombe: The Minister will be pleased to know that my intervention is about the time for implementation. He is making a persuasive case for a delay.

Gregory Barker: No, he is not.

Ann Widdecombe: My hon. Friend does not want a delay, but I accept that there is a persuasive case for one. However, there are two ways of approaching an 18-month delay. One is to use that time to re-home hounds, run down the activities and so on. The other is simply to treat it as a period of grace and to put off the day. What monitoring will be in place?

Alun Michael: The right hon. Lady makes an important point. I am asking people to prepare for the Bill's implementation during the period of delay. They should not, as she rightly points out, take it as an opportunity to put off the evil day and not to think about it. The Government would be prepared to engage with those who are willing to consider a more constructive future.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman advocates a delay, but that also gives the Government an opportunity to introduce a fully funded compensation scheme. Why will he not do that?

Alun Michael: I explained earlier when the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber why we do not think a compensation scheme is necessary in any sense or in any way.
	I said that I would comment further on the workings of this unusual procedure, by which the House may suggest an amendment to the other place. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 enable the will of this House to prevail in the face of disagreement between the two Houses. The procedure is available only if a reintroduced Bill is substantially unaltered, but section 2(4) of the 1911 Act provides that the Commons may suggest an amendment, which can be incorporated in a Bill, if it is accepted by the other place. If, in the face of the readiness of this House to use the Parliament Acts, the other place then agrees to the amended Bill, or agrees to amend the Bill, it can be enacted accordingly with the inclusion of the suggested amendment.
	The procedure for proposing suggested amendments has been on the statute book for more than 90 years, but as far as I am aware, it has not previously been used. It is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to interpret the Parliament Acts and to determine when they apply to any measure.

Simon Thomas: I am pleased that 90-year-old procedures can be used and look forward to an impeachment debate before too long.
	On the period of commencement, we are likely to vote for 18 months. I accept how the figures stack up, but the other place will know that the Government originally had two years in mind. The Minister explained why he wants to accept 18 months. What he has not told us is why the Government initially wanted two years. What was their thinking behind that? It could not have been plucked out of thin air because that is not possible, is it? Why is 18 months better than two years?

Alun Michael: Very simply, two years seemed a reasonable period, but, having looked at the practicalities, it became clear that going to the shorter period would take us beyond the latest possible date for the next general election. That makes it clear that the ballot box and not some other means is the way to deal with objections. It also means that the ban comes in before the start of a new hunting season. So 18 months makes sense on a number of grounds. I have made it clear that we accepted the argument, after some discussion, and that I support the proposal.
	I have also been asked what would happen if the other place accepts the suggested amendment but fails to pass the Bill or passes it with amendments that this House is unable to accept. My understanding from reading the 1911 Act is that the House could present the Bill for Royal Assent under the Parliament Act, but only with the existing three-month commencement provision. I would certainly defer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, but that is my understanding in order to inform the thinking of the House. The only other way to change the date of commencement would be to introduce a one-clause Bill to that effect.
	On this matter, as on so much else, I simply hope that common sense will triumph so that a hunting Bill, which this House has sought consistently over a number of years, will be put in place in an orderly way and democracy will prevail and be respected, even by those who did not want a ban enacted.

Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment (d), in line 5, leave out from force to end of line 6 and insert on 31st July 2006.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: (e), in line 6, leave out two and insert four.
	(f), in line 6, leave out two and insert five.
	(b), in line 6, leave out two years and insert one year.

Tony Banks: I declare my interest as a vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his work on the issue and his understanding of it. He has taken a load on himself. It is something of a poisoned chalice, but he has acquitted himself well.
	I asked myself two questions in relation to amendment (d). First, is the issue important? Last week, we debated the proposed European constitution, which I think is vital. There were 20 Members in the Chamber and there was virtually nary a word about it in the media. Today, the House is packed to the rafters and the debate is running live in the media, with blanket coverageso the facts seem to say that it is important.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Banks: No.
	Secondly, is it a class issue? Well, yes it is. It is a middle class, middle England issue. The profile of the average passionate anti-hunter is a white, middle class woman, living in the home counties or in a county town or village, who reads the Daily Mail. I have had more letters on this subject than any other hon. Member. It is not a case of urban guerrillas versus toffs. Some of my best friends are toffs. Indeed, I hope to become a toff myself one day.
	I tabled amendment (d), and I realise that not all my colleagues who support the Bill are happy with it. I understand and share their feelings, so perhaps I can explain my motives and reasoning. I want a ban in place as much as anyone in the House, but I also want to guarantee that it will happen. The Government wanted a commencement date beyond any possible date for a general election and so tabled a two-year delay in implementation. In discussions with Ministers, as my right hon. Friend said, they decided to move their position.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to my temporary hon. Friend for giving way. Many of us, despite having listened to the case for a delay, feel very uneasy about it. What support, or otherwise, for an 18-month delay has he received from the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare?

Tony Banks: None. I am explaining an issue that we have to resolve in the House, and I am asking the House to listen to my tactical reasons for tabling the amendment.
	Ministers have now shifted their position. Their arguments, as I perceive them, are that a delay will lower the political temperature and allow the election to be used by those who are pro-hunting to express their views through their vote. That seems perfectly reasonable. If the electorate want a ban to remain in place, assuming that the Bill is passed, they should vote Labour or, indeed, Liberal Democrat. If they want a Government pledge to overturn the ban, they can work and vote for the Conservatives. It is as simple and straightforward as that, and on that I think the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and I are in total agreement. Personally, I do not believe that hunting would, could or should determine the outcome of a general election one way or the other, but trust could, and regrettably the issue of hunting has been caught up as one of those trust in the Government cases.

Hugo Swire: The problem of trust, it seems to me, is that many people in the countryside simply do not trust the Government commitment to the countryside, hunting being one small part of that. Has the hon. Gentleman, at any stage in his capacity as vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports, had discussions with anyone in the organisation about what will happen if hunting is banned? Will there be a move towards other sports, namely reared shooting and, in turn, fishing?

Tony Banks: I have not had discussions about that because we are concentrating on this issue. [Interruption.] There will be organisations outside that want to ban fishing and shooting. It is their right to hold that view, and it is our right to have this debate and vote on the issue, if necessary. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is virtually no support in this House for a ban on shooting or angling. That being so, why do Conservative Members keep throwing the issue into the debate, as though somehow a ban on hunting is the thin end of the wedge? Organisations outside the House may think that it is; inside, I can tell them, there is no majority in favour of such a ban. Personally, I would support a ban on shootinglet me make that quite clear.
	The Prime Minister wanted a two-year delay, and most Labour Members want the Bill as it stands or would, perhaps, accept a one-year delay, but we have compromised, so the Government cannot now say that those of us who want a ban have been unreasonable. Therefore, they cannot even think about delaying Third Reading or, for example, moving a motion on the Floor of the House that the Parliament Act not be used. The Parliament Act is not in the gift of the Government to use, but they certainly have a right, if they wish, to table for debate a motion to the effect that we do not use it. In that case, I would like to listen to the arguments and watch the outcome, but I know that Ministers are not even thinking about that.
	If, as expected, the Lords rejects the Bill, we should ask it to consider the delaying proposal. If the House supports my amendment, we will lock the Government into an agreement and they will then willingly see the measure through. The political dilemma then becomes one for the Lords, not this House. The effect of my amendment on hunting would be to allow two more fox hunting seasons, two more deer hunting seasons, one more mink hunting season and two more hare hunting seasons. Hare coursing, of course, would finish early in 2005. I must say that the litany of slaughter that the delay implies does not fill me with joy, nor am I wholly satisfied, but I can just about live with my conscience knowing that a ban will be on the statute book, albeit later than we really wanted.
	For what it is worth, my prediction is that even if we carry the Bill and amendment (d) today, the Lords will throw both out, and thus three months after the Bill receives Royal Assent a ban will come into effectin February or March 2005. I say this seriously: any problems that arise from that will be the responsibility of the Lords alone. If, on the other handI doubt that this will happen but I hope that it doesthis House and the Lords agree to amendment (d), the hunts will, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, have ample time to deal with their animals and change to other pursuits such as drag hunting. It will also mean that although the two Houses did not agree on the principle of the ban, they will have agreed on its implementation date.
	On this amendment and on this issue I am asking the House, including some of my colleagues who have been a bit critical of me for tabling the amendment, to trust meand, after all, why not? I am a Member of Parliament.

James Gray: The stark, profound and terrible sense of betrayal felt by people in the countryside today will in no sense be assuaged by the Prime Minister's cynical, grubby attempt to bribe them by offering this 18-month stay of execution. The Minister is saying, You're going to be executed, but don't worry, we'll put it off until next week. People in the countryside will pay no attention to that; nor will their hatred, sadness and anger be in any way assuaged by the grubby little political deal that the right hon. Gentleman is offering us.
	We know why the Minister is offering the deal. It has nothing to do with animal welfare, with allowing hunts to wind down or with the 8,000 families who will be thrown into penury as a result of this disgraceful Bill. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh. They think that it is funny that 8,000 employees will be thrown out of work as a result of the Bill. The countryside does not think that it is funny, and if Labour Members laugh at their plight, that will make people's anger and sadness worse, not better. I appeal to Labour Members' better side: they have won the debate and they are putting 8,000 people out of work. I ask them not to laugh about it and at least to have some sympathy for those people.

Elliot Morley: I do not think that hon. Members are laughing about the issue of people's employment. It does not help to exaggerate the situation, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the Burns report, which contains a good evaluation of the number of full-time equivalents employed by hunts, he will find that 8,000 is a gross exaggeration.
	On the procedures for winding down hunts, I should say that there are many decent people involved in hunting who are already thinking about switching to drag hunting and other alternatives. At the moment, every obstacle is being put in their way. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the good point that now the House has taken its decision, people should focus on the changes that can be made and the help that they can receive in making them.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman has not been involved in the debate over the past few years and he has not read the Burns report, so understandably he is unaware that Burns makes two very clear points. First, on the figure of full-time equivalents

Elliot Morley: There are not 8,000 full-time equivalents.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I allowed him to make a long intervention. From memory, I think that the figure given by Burns is 6,724 full and part-time jobs, equivalent to 8,000 full-time jobs. [Interruption.] Having won the argument and banned hunting, Labour Members might at least do us the decency of displaying sympathy for people who will be thrown on to the streets, whether there are 6,000 of them or 8,000. The Minister seeks to make a political point and to say that I have got my figures wrong, but many thousands of people will be put into penury as a result of the Bill, and surely a Labour Government could at least show some sympathy for them.
	The Minister is also quite wrong about drag hunting. Almost the only clear conclusion that Lord Burns comes to is that in no circumstances could drag hunting be a substitute for fox hunting. He makes that 100 per cent. plain. This constant cry that somehow or other we will convert the 26,000 hounds that currently hunt foxes, deer and mink into drag hounds is a nonsense. I shall return to that point in a moment.
	We believe this to be a political deal, and we want no part of it. We are certainly not going to be fooled by it. I also believe that if it was in the Prime Minister's mind to strike a political deal, he has made a significant political miscalculation. Although I entirely decry the scenes that we have seen todayI do not necessarily believe that pro-hunting people were responsibleI believe that the fury and anger of hunting people and their determination to overturn this disgraceful Bill will have a significant effect in marginal Labour seats in the forthcoming general election. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is right that hunting will not be an issue in the general electionthere are not many votes on either side, because most antis vote Labour and most pros vote Conservative. However, about 1 million people feel incredibly strongly about this issue, and they will target Labour seats with majorities of less than 3,000. I believe that what the Government have done today will have a very significant effect indeed on the general election for that reason. Many Members here will find that their constituencies are canvassed six, eight or 10 times by supporters of hunting, irrespective of what their political allegiances may be.

Tony Banks: Almost to a person, Labour Members in marginal rural constituencies and with hunts in their constituencies want a ban at the earliest possible time. With regard to voting, the Countryside Alliance and those that generally support it would not vote for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Labour party if we brought back witch burning and public executions and handed out free cider while they were watching.

James Gray: I am delighted for the hon. Gentleman and hope that his hon. Friends are as confident as he sounds. If he is right, that is fine. However, the picture will be extremely plain in the forthcoming general election: this Government have banned hunting; a Conservative Government will be committed to reintroduce hunting with a free vote on both sides of the House. The 1 million people who care passionately about hunting will not necessarily wish to discuss it during the general election campaign, but one thing is for surethey will put their shoulders to the Conservative wheel to ensure that we throw out this illiberal Labour Government and bring in a free Conservative Government.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The whole House knows that we shall rise tomorrow. In the past 24 hours some very alarming news has reached Members concerning the future and security of the motor industry in the west Midlands. Will you use your good offices to ask the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box before the House rises so that Members with an interest in the midlands motor industry can put questions to her?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is still time for the hon. Gentleman to use the procedures available to him to seek to raise that matter. He could submit an application to Mr. Speaker that will no doubt receive his serious consideration.

David Winnick: I agree with that point of order.
	Does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) agree that if Members of Parliament refused to vote for what they believe in because they were frightened of losing their seats that would reflect very badly on the House as a whole? If my hon. Friends and I trembled at his words, we would have no integrity and would be abandoning what we believe to be right.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. I suspect that listening carefully to what voters in one's constituency are thinking and doing is an extremely important part of democracy. He is right that some Members of Parliament will ignore their constituents and do something that they do not like, but they will have to face the consequences.
	It is important to examine very carefully the precise justification that the Minister advanced for the 18-month delay. Of course, we welcome that as far as it goes, because we would rather have a ban in 18 months than in 12 months. However, it shows a complete ignorance of the way in which hunting works. The average hound has a working life of at least seven years, sometimes much longersome can hunt until they are 10 or 15. The Minister said that it is disgraceful that some of these animals are destroyed at the end of their working lives. All large working dogs, including police alsatians, have a working life of about seven years. Many are rehomed, but by no means all. A great many large working dogs of all kinds, including farm dogs and police dogs, are put down humanely at the end of their working lives.
	The rather bizarre report produced by the all-party group on animal welfare suggests that there are alternative uses for these dogs, of which there may be 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 across England26,000 fox hounds and a large number of other working dogs. What is going to happen to them? In the report, the RSPCA suggests that it might be possible to rehome them. Some of these dogs are extremely largeperhaps the height of the Tableand extremely powerful. They are used to living in kennels in the company of 80, 100 or 120 other hounds. The idea that they could be removed individually and rehomed in domestic circumstances is ludicrous, as anyone who has ever encountered a working fox hound from a kennel will know. It would be cruel to take it away and put it in someone's front lounge, and it is not a sensible option.
	The report also suggests retraining the hounds for drag hunting. If a pack of hounds has been trained to chase the scent of a fox, a deer or a mink, it is impossible to imagine their somehow being retrained to hunt a bag of aniseed. Even if it were possible, what would happen when they were out on their day's drag hunting and came across a fox? Under the Bill, we do not know whether intent to kill a fox is the crime; indeed, we do not know what the offence of hunting is. One of the scandals of the way in which it has been handled is that there has been no definition of hunting or of who is doing itis it the master, the whippers-in, people two fields away, or a passing tourist who happens to see what is going on? We do not know and the Bill does not tell us: the courts will have to examine that.
	If, as the report suggests, fox hounds are to be reused, let us imagine that all 26,000 were reused as drag houndsa ludicrous suggestion, but let us imagine it nevertheless. If they accidentally kill a fox, a deer or a mink in the course of their normal day's drag hunting, is that an offence? The Minister might like to enlighten us, because it is not clear from the Bill.
	It is odd that the report ignores the submission by the British Veterinary Association, which knows what it is talking about and which concludes that it would not be possible to rehome or to retrain these animals and that the only way to deal with such a substantial number would be humanely to kill them at the end of their working lives.
	There is no question but that the Bill will result in the deaths of perhaps 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 dogs as soon as it comes in. I welcome the 18-month delay in the sense that action can be taken with regard to breeding, and it may be wound down. However, a great many young puppiesthe new entry, as we call itwill have come in this summer and may have seven or 10 years ahead of them. When I was out autumn hunting last week, a 13-year-old hound was hunting. Those young hounds may have 13 years ahead of them, and the 18-month delay will have no effect on them.
	The same applies to many horses. They can more easily be reused for hacking, but many lower-grade horses are kept exclusively for hunting. Almost certainly, the capital value of hunters will collapse as a result of the ban; that in itself has some welfare consequences.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only low-grade horses but many thoroughbreds are unsuitable for hacking? I have a thoroughbreda retired racehorse[Laughter.] I do not know why that is funny. I happen to love horsesobviously Labour Members do not. I am lucky to have a retired racehorse, with which I hunt. He would not make a comfortable hack. When there is no use for horses like that, there may be no permanent use for them in riding schools.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Horse and Pony Taxation Committee, which I chaired until recently, and several other horse organisations that have no position on hunting, made it plain that a collapse in the value of horses will occur as a result of a ban. That will have some welfare consequences, although fewer than those for hounds.

David Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, although he declined to do so earlier when he turned 6,700 full and part-time people into the equivalent of 8,000 full-time people. Perhaps he can explain the arithmetic of that to me in the bar afterwards.
	On the economics that he is currently considering, does he accept that most assessors suggest that when equestrian activity is detached from the taint of hunting, more people will want to ride and be involved, and the number of jobs will therefore grow by more than the 600 or 700 direct jobs that may be lost when the hunts disappear?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are dealing with the amendment. I do not want us to stray too far back into the substance of the debate, albeit truncated, on Second Reading.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is some value in delaying the Bill's implementation because that will benefit the 6,000 to 8,000 people who will lose their jobs. He argues that that is somehow progressive. For clarity, I shall quote paragraph 18 of the Burns report, which states:
	We estimate that somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs presently depend on hunting, although the number of people involved may be significantly higher.
	I do not intend to get into a backwards-and-forwards discussion with the hon. Gentleman, because even if the figure were 50 people or 10 people it would be a matter of concern to the House. Many people will lose their livelihoods as a result of what has happened today.

Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I shall give way in a second, but we should listen to Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction and not go too far into the issue.
	The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) argued that the horse industry would somehow grow as a result of a ban on hunting. No evidence exists to suggest that that would happen. The most recent DEFRA-commissioned reportthe Henley reportmentioned the deleterious effect that the ban on hunting would have on the horse industry. There is no suggestion that a ban would increase the amount of horse riding for other purposes.

Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: Before the Minister intervenes, I want to make it plain that, although I am happy to take a brief intervention on the number of jobs, the significant point is that it will be a large number. If he stands up, cites some other paragraph in the Burns report and says that the figure is only 5,700, that would be an irrelevant intervention. Whatever the figure5,700, 6,700, 10,000 or 300the number of people is significant. With that caveat, I am happy to give way.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted me; I have the figures. According to Burns's figures, hunts directly employ 710 peopleI refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 3.37. Followers directly employ 1,497 people. I do not know how many of those people do other things. Of course, there are othersup to 5,000 is the figure providedwho have some connection with the hunt. That does not necessarily mean that all those people will lose their jobs. I do not play down the matter. There is an employment issue, and we should face up to it. However, it does not help to exaggerate the position. Far more people than those mentioned in the Burns report lost their jobs in the steel industry in my constituency alone.

James Gray: I warned the Minister that I did not intend to enter into a backwards-and-forwards discussion on numbers because the figures are plain: many people will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. However, the end of the Minister's intervention was interesting. He sought to make fun of my comments about numberswe could argue about that; it is an interesting academic subjectbut he finished by saying, Anyhow, lots of jobs were lost in the steel industry. One or two other hon. Members said earlier, You never said that about the miners when Thatcher threw them out. Revenge is therefore all right. I do not accept that.
	We are discussing implementation of the measure and whether an 18-month delay will be useful. The many thousands of peopleI suspect that it will be tens of thousands if we include saddlers, farriers and others who are involvedthat the Bill affects will not be helped by the 18-month delay. That is the substantive point.

Andrew George: In some senses, the Minister's intervention helps the hon. Gentleman and me to make the case, which the Government previously rejected, for compensation. Both he and I believe that, if the measure is to be implemented, those who are affected should be compensated, just as other communities were helped through regeneration funds when there was a decline in the steel industry.

James Gray: We were prevented from discussing compensation because of the House's inability to consider the measure in detail. We spoke about it at some length during the previous Bill's passage. The Government ignored it and the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality told me across the Dispatch Box that those who lost their jobs could go to the jobcentre the same as anybody else. However, when the Government abolished fur farmingabout which the Labour party took a similar principled stance to that on huntingthey introduced compensation for the fur farmers who lost their jobs. They should do the same in the case that we are considering, which we do not have an opportunity to discuss.

Hugo Swire: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am genuinely trying to wind up my remarks. I have been on my feet for some time and I am keen for others to speak. However, I shall give way briefly.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to nail the comparison with the decline in the steel industry and other industries

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have moved further and further away from the amendment. I encourage hon. Members to come back to the terms of the motion and amendment; otherwise, there will certainly be no time to discuss all the matters that they wish to raise.

James Gray: The measure affects not only the people who will lose their jobs but the farmers who will have 500,000 carcases, most of which currently go to hunts, a year to dispose of, the hunts, who will have the problem of what to do with their hounds, the fox population, which will explode as a direct result of the ban, and game shooting, poultry and sheep farming. It is interesting that, under the Bill as drafted, people are allowed to use terriers underground to save game shooting. That is considered acceptable. However, someone who uses terriers underground to save the 380,000 lambs a year that foxes kill will go to prison. Someone who uses terriers underground to save poultry farming, which suffers terrible depredations from foxes, will go to prison. Terriers may be used underground only to save game shooting. I welcome that, but it shows the absurdity of the detail of the Bill. The 18-month delay will not help.
	The consequences of implementation in three months or 12 monthsand immediate implementation for hare coursing, on which I shall not expand except to say that I do not agree with the Government's argumentare too horrible to contemplate from almost every perspective.
	The Government's cynical offer of a delay is an insult to the intelligence of country people. We know why the Minister made the offer: to avoid too bad a backlash in the approaching general election. It has nothing to do with animal welfare. It will assuage neither our fury nor our determination by one whit. I urge hon. Members to accept the proposal for a delay of 18 months, but it would have been better to accept our five-year proposal, which would have taken good account of the animal welfare consequences of the delay.
	Those who believe in freedom and tolerance and love the countryside will devote every ounce of their strength to removing the illiberal Labour Government who have ruined their lives in the sure and certain knowledge that an incoming Conservative Government will introduce a Bill to repeal the damaging, illiberal and disgraceful measure.

Jean Corston: I am delighted that, once again, the House of Commons has voted by an overwhelming majority in favour of a Bill to ban hunting. I have been a lifelong opponent of hunting and my opposition was reinforced before Christmas last year when I saw a fox being torn apart by hounds of the Beaufort hunt just off the public highway.
	I want to refer particularly to the human rights aspects of the commencement date, in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Hon. Members will know that I chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As part of its scrutiny process, the Committeewhich does not have a Government majorityhas to put aside political views and be guided solely by legal advice on the compatibility of provisions proposed in legislation with the European convention on human rights and other international instruments.
	In this regard, it is important to remember that article 1 of protocol No. 1 of the European convention, which we have incorporated into domestic law, states:
	Every natural or legal person is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
	Let us face itbanning hunting does interfere with property rights, in terms of the use of private land and the ownership and management of hounds, for example. In the Government's correspondence with the Committee, the Government advanced two propositions. One was that a total prohibition of hunting amounted only to a control on property, rather than a deprivation of it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with that.
	The Government went on to assert that a prohibition would result only in a control on the benefit of contracts relating to hunting. Such contracts include the employment contracts to which several hon. Members have referred, and contracts undertaken by people who provide goods and services. The Joint Committee on Human Rights disagreed with that proposition on contracts that had already been entered into, for a number of reasons. The first was that there was no history of progressive legislative restriction of hunting with dogs over a long period in this country. The second was that there had been no announcement by the Government that they intended to legislate in a particular way. The third was that a legitimate expectation cannot be lost because the Government are consulting on possible future legislation. After all, the first Bill offered three options, only one of which involved a complete ban. Fourthly, there was no certainty about the content of any future Bill, and, fifthly, there was no certainty that the Parliament Acts would be used if necessary.
	One does not have to be an aficionado of The Archers to know that the people involved in hunting never believed that this day would come; one has only to go outside the House today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights therefore concluded that the Government had not publicly advanced such a clear policy of banning hunting that people should automatically lose the legitimate expectation that their contracts would be effective and enforceable. In short, we need to give notice. The question is: how long should that notice period be, and to what purposes should it be put?

Gerald Howarth: I am listening to the right hon. Lady's argument with great care. She mentioned earlier that one of the considerations involved was the public interest. Will she tell us how the public interest will be served by making criminals of ordinary, decent, law-abiding folk who wish quietly to participate in their country pursuits?

Jean Corston: There is nothing in this Bill that will turn anyone into a criminal. People will become criminals if they decide to disobey the law.
	What would be a reasonable commencement date? What would be a reasonable period for people with contracts related to hunting to make alternative arrangements? The hunting season has started, and it is evident that people have made financial and employment commitments to cover this season. I would suggest that it would be reasonable to allow this season to proceed and to allow one further hunting season. That would enable peopleif they wish, and if they are sensibleto consider alternatives such as drag hunting. It would also enable the people employed in hunting, whatever their numbers, to look for other work, and enable those who provide goods and services to find other markets, as we are urging them to do.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Jean Corston: No, I am sorry, I will not.
	Whatever happens, there will be an election before 31 July 2006, which is the date referred to in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. The Countryside Alliance has said that 59 per cent. of people support hunting, but I have never accepted or believed that figure. The important thing is, however, that if the alliance thinks that the British people feel that it has right on its side, it will have the opportunity, as part of the democratic process at the general election, to advance that argument. It might succeed, although I doubt it very much. We shall see. It is up to the people outside today, the people who are used always to having the law on their side, to recognise the will of Parliament.

Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Jean Corston: No, I will not.
	In my opinion, and according to most opinion polls, the majority of people in this country are opposed to hunting. Even if they were not, I am opposed to itif the majority of people in this country were in favour of capital punishment, I would still be opposed to itand I have to say what I think is right. I do not think that what I saw the Beaufort hunt hounds doing to that fox before Christmas last year has any place in a civilised society.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise a matter that is slightly outside the scope of this debate, but it touches directly on the rights and duties of Members of Parliament. There is, as you know, a demonstration going on outside. Members of Parliament have a right to observe what is going on, partly to ensure that disproportionate force is not being used by the police and also to ensure that their constituents can be apprised of the facts.
	I was seeking to walk from St. Stephen's entrance to Carriage Gates when I was stopped by a police sergeant. I asked him by what authority he had stopped me, and a discussion followed. He then cited the Sessional Orders and the commissioner's regulations. I do not believe that either of those entitles a policeman to stop a member of the public or a Member for Parliament proceeding along that highway. The police have no right to do anything that is not authorised by statute, by common law or by the regulations of this House. I was therefore prevented from doing something that I feel is my duty. I ask you to ask Mr. Speaker whether he will raise this matter directly with the commissioner. This has happened to me twice today, as well as on previous occasions. It is wrong in principle, and I believe that the police are overusing their powers. I hope that the Chair will look into this matter.
	Incidentally, the sergeant in question was courteous. I took his name and he has mine, and I shall be writing to the commissioner, but I make no complaint about the way in which the sergeant handled himself. I am merely concerned that the way in which the rules are being interpreted is wrong.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also put on record the fact that I, too, had some difficulty with the police when seeking to get back here to vote during one of the earlier Divisions today? Furthermore, a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have had difficulties with police officers today. I sent an e-mail to the Serjeant at Arms yesterday asking him to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner made it clear to his officers that Members of Parliament should have access to the protesters outside and be able to get back to the House. I am sorry to say that, despite the Serjeant at Arms's reassurances that the police had been alerted to my request, it appears that, in too many instances, they had not. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that sufficient has been said on this matter, bearing in mind the overall time situation. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) have raised a serious matter, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker will seek to find out exactly what happened. On the one hand, this House obviously places extreme importance on its Sessional Orders and on freedom of access. At the same time, however, there was clearly a very difficult situation outside. The interpretation of our rights might, therefore, have been dealt with more narrowly than right hon. and hon. Members would find ideal, although I do not know the exact circumstances. The matter has been put on record, and Mr. Speaker will discuss it with the Serjeant at Arms and, if necessary, further afield, to check exactly what the situation is.

Andrew George: I intend to be brief. On the date for the commencement of this legislation, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) knows well that I have signed his amendment and I encourage and support the principle that the Government have ultimately adopted in proposing to delay the implementation of this Bill. Clearly, that amendment recognises that it would be most appropriate for implementation of the Bill to be introduced during the close season for fox hunting. It would be inappropriate to implement it not long after cubbing has been completed and the winter season for fox hunting commenced, which would otherwise be the case.
	I want to make two other points on the commencement date. The first, to which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred obliquely, is in respect of the animal by-products order and the responsibility of Government and the agricultural sector to ensure that all fallen stock are disposed of within the regulation. As the Minister knows well, the Government have been wrestling with this issue for far longer than they would wish before finally announcing the establishment of a national fallen stock collection scheme. I know that an announcement has been made, but many farmers are concerned about its effective implementation.
	As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire pointed out correctly, a large number of those fallen stock are taken to hunt kennels, which provide a valuable service to the Government through the services that they provide to the agricultural sector. When the Minister winds up, or at some later stage of the debate, it would be helpful if he would clarify that the Government have a further 18 months in which to find alternatives or

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I was not planning to wind up in order to allow Members more time, but I will answer his point directly. A number of hunts have contracted within the fallen stock collection scheme. It is a contractual arrangementa businessabout which we are very relaxed. Whatever future decisions hunts make, if they wish to continue with that contract and provide that service, which provides employment now for hunt workers, they are free to do so.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He must anticipate that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, further adjustment will be needed among a large number of hunts if they do not intend to continue with kennels either through drag hunting or other means. I hope that the Government will work closely with those who currently provide that service through hunts to ensure that the agricultural sector is given that support.
	The second point on the date of commencement, which was raised on Report and Third Reading last year by me and many other Members from all parties, is that a precipitous decision to implement such a measure would have a significant impact on small rural communities, even if it is on only a few of them. The case was therefore made for a compensation package, which was supported by Members on both sides of the House. That was refused, and although it has been debated obliquely today, I hope that the Minister and his Department, as they negotiate on how this measure is to be implemented, will reflect on whether their decision not to provide compensation is appropriate. If the Minister is right, and the numbers affected are small, the overall cost to taxpayers is also likely to be low. I therefore hope that careful consideration will be given to resolving those issues over the next 18 months, and that the decision not to apply a compensation package will be reviewed.

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) said that she thought that the Countryside Alliance believed that it would never see this day. I understand thatthere were times during the past 12 to 18 months when I thought that I, and those who wish to see hunting with dogs come to an end, would never see this day, too. There were timesI say this without hesitationwhen it seemed that the Government were not going to act. That was the greatest fear in my mind. Obviously, Opposition Members, who take the opposite view, wish that that were the case.
	My concern was that the Government considered that such a Bill would cause too much controversy, which to some extent it has, and that it would be an obstacle before the general election. That is why I and my hon. Friends, at business questions, Prime Minister's questions and Upstairsgiving no secrets awayat meetings of the parliamentary Labour party, urged that the Parliament Act should be used. If it is said that I was one of those whom the Prime Minister would want to please because of the stance on Iraq, that cannot apply to me because I fully supported him on that issue. Likewise, as I have indicated in an intervention, none of my hon. Friends who took an opposite view on Iraq will change their mind because of what is being done. Therefore, the conspiracy theories are just damn silly.
	I could argue that there should be no further delay. Nevertheless, I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Indeed, when it was known that the Government were going to delay implementation for two years and there were arguments as to whether we should press for one year, in those private conversationswhich are not so private now that I mention themI took the view that we should be more accommodating. When my hon. Friend proposed the amendment giving the date of 31 July 2006, that was fine by me. We are showing flexibility for all the reasons that have been advanced today.
	Surely, the important point is that the country will have an opportunity to express its view. Were this being debated some two or three years before a general election, it could be argued that the public would not have such an opportunity for many years ahead. However, even if the election is in 2006it is likely to be before thatthe electorate will have an opportunity. If the Opposition are correct and there is such a feeling among people, apart from those who are protesting, that what we are doing is unreasonable and wrong, clearly we will suffer electorally. We live in a democracy. I do not know how many Members believe that we will suffer at the next election because of what we are doing today. Who knows? I do not happen to believe that we will.
	There may well be those opposite who do not believe what I am about to say. I am very keen to be re-elected, but even if I thought that I would suffer at the next election I would take the same view. The same applied to my views on capital punishment and my support for legislation to outlaw discrimination on grounds of race and colour. That was not very popular, even among a number of people who normally voted Labour, but I took a stancealong with others; I am not just praising myselfand accepted the consequences at the general election.

Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that good democracy is not simply the tyranny of a majority? If the principle that he expounds had been applied to Northern Ireland, we would never have seen the progress that we have seen over the past few years. That has been due to a recognition that certain things must be based on a broadly consensual mood. Steps cannot be taken just because a certain section of the population is in the ascendant.

David Winnick: You would take me to task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I pursued the subject of Northern Ireland, in which I take a close interest. I see no possibility of comparison between the position of the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland and what we are debating today. I think that that is totally irrelevant.
	The issue, as I see it, is clear. Either the will of the elected Chamber will be upheld, or there will be a permanent veto by the House of Lords. There is no middle way: even the Prime Minister would not argue that there is a third way in this case. I see democracy as the right of a majority in the House of Commons to make decisions. Those decisions might be wrong. During my party's 18 years in opposition, I considered most of the decisions that were made to be wrong. It was, however, the right of the majority in the House to make them, and the electorate's right to decide accordingly at the appropriate time. It was not for the House of Lords to have a permanent veto.
	Those who argue today that they are acting from the point of view of parliamentary democracy are, in effect, saying that we have no right to uphold a decision that was carried in the last and the present Parliaments, on a free vote by a substantial majority, if the House of Lords repeatedly says no. I do not agree with that interpretation of democracy. We have a right to have our decisions upheld. It is commendable that the Government have had the courageor will have the courage, if the House of Lords refuses to change its mindto invoke the Parliament Act. I think that that is the right decision and that most, if not all, Labour Members are very pleased about what the Government have done.

Gerald Howarth: Today is 15 September. In our annual calendar, that is Battle of Britain day, held to celebrate the fleet of Royal Air Force pilots who stood between us and tyranny. If they fought for liberty 64 years ago we are fighting for liberty today, and against the tyranny of the majority. It is a squalid Bill, made even more squalid by the manner in which the Government have sought to introduce the timetable.
	The Prime Minister clearly wanted a two-year delay because otherwise he would face the prospect of opposition in the countryside next year. That would have spoilt his plans for the general election. I am afraid that I have no time for the Minister. He has given in to his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), not because his hon. Friend has found a unique point in the calendar that would be better than the precise date of two years hence, but because he knows that if his hon. Friend's amendment were put to the vote it would be carried. Once again, he has given in supinely to the mob force on the other side who wish to tyrannise a small group of people, to whom I shall refer again shortly.
	I do not believe that this is an issue about employment. I used to represent a coal mining constituency not far from that of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), and I well know that people have lost their jobs in other areas of our national life. That is to be regretted. I believe, though, that this is an issue simply of libertyof people's entitlement to pursue activities that they believe they should be able to pursue in a free society.
	Last weekend, when I visited the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Northumberland, I met members of the College Valley hunt. Some of them had been down to Trimdon to have words with the Prime Minister and give him some advice about this. The Prime Minister apparently told them that he was sympathetic, but could do nothing about it because he had to listen to his Back Benchers. What a pathetic cop-out by the Prime Minister. Does it not reveal what a weak man he is? This is a man who has got to listen to his Back Benchers on the important issue of hunting, but did he listen to his Back Benchers on the issue of Iraq? He certainly did nothe overrode them.
	This Bill is the raw meat that the Prime Minister is giving to his Back Benchers The people who are to be sacrificed on the altar of Labour party unity to defend him against an increasingly disenchanted party are those in the most remote rural communities.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman says that this is all about liberty. He has supported many measures in the House that have curbed certain people's freedoms, on which he and I might agree; but if the will of Parliament and Government so decides, in a civilised society the House of Commons must decide what people can and cannot do.

Gerald Howarth: Of course there are occasions on which we have to decide between competing freedoms. My point is that this measure is not based on the public interest. I challenged the right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) to say where the public interest lay in this ban, but she could give no answer. I also believe that the motives for the Bill are ill founded, whereas in the case of other issues I think there can be genuine differences in the interpretation of how liberty should be exercised.
	I believe that this should be the place where the interests of minorities are protected, and that those who now seek to impose their views on rural communities should examine their consciences very deeply. On what grounds do they assert a superior moral authority to turn into criminals some of the most decent and law-abiding people in these islands? Is it because their activity represents a danger to other members of society? Emphatically not. Is it because they inflict intolerable suffering on animals, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) seems so misguidedly to assert?

Ann Widdecombe: Yes.

Gerald Howarth: Hardly, as many of them are the same people who 365 days a year, day and night and in all weathers, look after the animals in their charge and tend the countryside to make it a place to be enjoyed by the remaining 95 per cent. of the population.
	Many members of my family in Scotland are sheep farmers in the borders. My late uncle was master of the Jed Forest hunt. These are people who are the greatest animal lovers in the country. How dare my right hon. Friend suggest that my uncle's judgment was somehow inferior to hers? I think she needs to examine her conscience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have given him considerable latitude. I understand the frustration of Members on both sides of the House who were denied an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I must uphold order. We are now dealing with a motion and an amendment, rather than with the substance of the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. I am merely trying to explain why I think it intolerable that the Government should behave in such an underhand fashion in seeking to extend the period of execution. In my view, that is not being done out of a desire to assist rural communities; it is being done out of a desire to minimise the disruption that might be caused during a period leading up to a general election next year. I think that the Government have failed to deal with the issue of cruelty, and I think it a shame that we have not had more opportunity to ask the hon. Member for West Ham whether he considers hunting with hounds more cruel than coarse fishingwhich, on any scale of cruelty, I submit would appear to be more cruel.
	The fact is that rural communities will be feeling tonight that they are under siege from a large majority, represented by Government Members, who have no feel for the countryside or their way of life. They have 18 months in which to prepare for a fundamental change. The hunt is part of the social glue that maintains the cohesion of communities in some of the most remote parts of England and Walescommunities for whom the hunt is the only social activity in dark winters. These people face the prospect of a central part of their way life being taken from them. It is grossly unfair that the majority should seek to inflict their views on the minority in this way.
	We will all doubtless agree that the hallmark of a free society is tolerance towards those whose opinions one does not share. If this Bill goes through tonight, with or without this amendment, Britain will have surrendered its claim to be a bastion of the free society. The mob will have taken over and the Prime Minister will be party to the intolerable imposition of the tyranny of the majority on the minority.

Ann Widdecombe: You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall confine my remarks entirely to the delay in implementation. I am not persuaded by the merits of an 18-month delay or the original two-year delay. I started off with a genuinely open mind. I listened very carefully to the Minister and initially I was impressed. The delay was about being kinder to the hounds, because it would provide more time to re-home them. It would also be fairer to organisations such as the RSPCA, which would have more time to re-home them.
	Having listened very carefully to those arguments, I began to be persuaded. But when I asked the central questionwhich animal welfare organisations are in favour of such a delay?the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, None. If there truly were compelling reasons of animal welfare, which I was prepared to entertain, for a delay of 18 months, it is inconceivable that animal welfare organisationsI am not talking about animal rights organisationswould not support such a delay.
	The second reason for my not being persuaded concerns the crucial questionI raised it earlierof how to ensure that the period of delay is used to run down hunts and make an orderly transition, rather than as a period of grace. It was clear from the answer given that although the Minister was seized of the point, there would be no monitoring of the situation.

Alun Michael: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising some serious points. I have discussed this issue with the animal welfare organisations. Understandably, bodies that have campaigned against hunting for many years cannot say that they are pleased with any delay, but they also pointed out that their main concern is that legislation be put in place. If MPs agree to such a delay, those organisations will accept it, move on and work with it, and emphasise the fact that legislation is coming.
	On the second point, I have talked to organisations in areas in which there might be an impact on employment, for example. We are more than willing to meet people halfway and to help themif they are willing to look at how they can re-order their activities for a period after a ban has come in. We are certainly willing to enter into that very positively.

Ann Widdecombe: I am sure that, where organisations are willing to make the change, the Government will be willing to helpat least, I sincerely hope sobut my question was rather different. It was: how do we ensure that the period is used to bring about change, and not simply as a prolongation of hunting? My hunch is that the first year of an 18-month delay will prove to be a period of grace. After all, if a hunt starts to run downif kennel-hands find other jobs, horses are disposed of and hounds are not replacedeventually, it will become a pretty ineffective hunt. I do not see hunts spinning that out over 18 months, so I am not entirely persuaded by that argument.
	There is also the argument mounted by the hon. Member for West Ham and others, whereby a delay until July 2006 will take us beyond any possible date of an election, which will enable pro-hunting people to make their views known at the ballot box. However, we have had two elections at which the Labour party's position on this issue has been made extremely clear, so there have already been two opportunities to decide on that basis at the ballot box, if this issue was really considered the overriding one. I cannot see the sense in the Government's then saying, having got through two such elections and having implemented a manifesto promise to such an extent that even the Parliament Act is invoked, Ah butwe'll have a referendum on the issue in the general election. That, too, is nonsense.
	I suspect that the real reason in all this is that the Prime Minister does not want the embarrassment of this issue being high on the agenda, with hunts being run down and kennels being closed, just before he is likely to callas opposed to being obliged to calla general election.
	I am sorry that I am picking on the hon. Member for West Ham today, because he has been a great comrade in arms during this battle, but I have to point out that I was finally unpersuaded of the argument for a delay when he said that, as a result of this pseudo-dealhe stopped just short of calling it a dealwe can guarantee that the Prime Minister and other Ministers will not suddenly move that the Parliament Act be not invoked after all. In fact, that is what this is all about. It is another deal between the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers. I see no reason why I should troop into the Lobby in support of that, so I remain deeply unpersuaded.

Alun Michael: There are all sorts of characterisations that one can offer of political discussion within and outside parties. The point is that organisations such as the Countryside Alliance have almost encouraged their members to think that there will never be a ban on hunting, or that it is somehow okay to carry on with such activities, even if legislation is passed. The real challenge is for usby us I mean the House and my partyto point out that we are being reasonable, but that they must come halfway. They must persuade their members to accept the fact that legislation is being passed in this House by a large majority, stop talking about how terrible it all issome dreadful rhetoric has been usedand get their members to listen to the debates in this House. That is a reasonable approach, and I seek to re-persuade the right hon. Lady

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the Minister that we cannot have mini-speeches masquerading as interventions.

Ann Widdecombe: I am rather sorry that we will not be voting on the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), which proposed a year's delay. I could have accepted that as a reasonable period in which to do everything that the Minister is suggesting, such as demonstrating reasonableness and giving people time to adjust. A delay of 18 months is pretty cynical and politically driven, and I am not certain that I can vote in favour of it. That said, I shall listen carefully to any further arguments that are deployed.
	The time has now come to bite the bullet. We have spent a very long time getting this ban, and it has been a long, hard fight. I had a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) when he said today that he felt that in these, his last years in Parliament, he has brought something to fruition. I well remember, back in the days when we were in government, what was then called the McNamara Bill. It was instrumental in testing parliamentary opinion, and in working towards the eventual commitment given by Labour Front Benchers.
	Given that we have decided to do this, my wish is that we do it quickly. I could be persuaded that three months is too short a period, but 18 months is far too long.

Peter Atkinson: We have a first tonight, in that I agree with something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said on this issue. She was right to say that the 18-month delay is a cynical move to take us beyond the next general election and prevent demonstrations from happening during the campaign. Another bit of marvellous spin from the Governmentthe suggestion that the delay was to give the hunting fraternity the opportunity to express their view at the ballot boxabsolutely defies belief.
	I am remiss in not having declared my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Another thing that struck me about the 18 months is that one particular sport was left out of the equation. Why do foxhounds and beagles need that winding-up period, but not the sport of coursing? I know what the Minister has said about illegal coursing, but that is a fig leaf, because coursing has precisely the same contracts and arrangements as fox and stag hunting and beagling.
	The right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) was right to refer to human rights legislation. The Minister is shaking his head, but he should listen. One reason why the delay was perceived to be necessary was that, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights said, it would be unreasonable to wrap up hunting in three months, because there are contracts and so on.

Alun Michael: The Committee said no such thing, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at what it did say. I have twice made the pointthe trouble is that people are not here for the whole of the debatethat there is serious criminal activity associated with hare coursing. Illegal coursing is conducted simply on the basis of trespass, and we need to give the police the tools to do the job. None of the welfare and business considerations apply in relation to hare coursing. I have made that very clear.

Peter Atkinson: The Minister makes it clear that he knows absolutely nothing about legal coursing. He is utterly wrong. Of course there is a problem with illegal coursing, but legal coursing is our oldest field sport and is organised and run under the rules of the National Coursing Club. To lump legal with illegal coursers is utterly wrong. The Government's proposals will be in breach of human rights legislation, and I sincerely hope that lawyers for the Countryside Alliance are poring over what the Minister said today.

Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are coursing kennels in my constituency that employ about three peoplelarge kennelsand all the people working there have contracts? Incidentally, because the coursing that takes place from those kennels is supervised and follows the rules, it prevents illegal coursing.

Peter Atkinson: That is absolutely right. The whole point of organised coursing is that it is run carefully under the rules, and the estates and farms involved are protected from poaching. That is why the Game Conservancy Trust consistently finds that estates and farms where coursing take place have a higher hare population than others.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the technical points that he is making seem to have been lost on those who are imposing this time limit? Similar problems occur in areas where hunting with dogs is the primary fox control method, because not only will new materials have to be used to control foxes but there will have to be fresh training and adaptation. Lord Burns himself said that fox hunting with dogs was the primary method of control in some areas.

Peter Atkinson: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman, and I think that I agree with him.
	Illegal coursing has long been a problem. The current laws that apply to it are quite draconian, involving the confiscation of vehicles and so on. They are not always enforced, and they are difficult to police. That is not an excuse, though, for saying that the ancient sport of legal coursing will be wiped out in three months' time, and the contracts with trainers and with merchants for feed, and the capital put into the kennels to train the coursing dogs, will be totally disregarded. If anything will be against the human rights legislation, that will be it, and the Minister may well face a challenge on it.

Andrew Robathan: Is not the point that people will give up working for hunts if they have this 18-month rundown, and they will then no longer have a claim for compensation against this ghastly and illiberal legislation?

Peter Atkinson: Precisely. If they are working as kennel hands or in the coursing training yards, they will be out of work in three months without compensation.
	The Minister spoke about the number of deer being killed by hounds. Once again, he perpetuates a myth that has long surrounded stag hunting, not recognising that the stag is shot at the end, and not killed by the hounds. I want to be sure, before he wipes out stag hunting, that he at least knows what goes on in the sport.
	The other fig leaf produced tonight was drag huntingas if that was a substitute for the hunting that goes on now. My constituency has seven packs of houndsit is precisely the kind of upland area with a high livestock population that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) mentioned. The proportion of people following those hounds on horseback is probably a third. Another third follow on foot or in vehicles, and the restlargely farmers and their childrenon quad bikes, which have become very popular. Drag hunting holds no interest for two thirds of the people who currently follow hounds.
	Hunting is an equestrian sport, so it has to be laid out in a particular way. I have taken part in that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) would also understand this. The drag must not run over crops. It is a difficult and complex job, and by no means could all those who currently hunt and the 26,000 hounds be accommodated. Normally, only a handful of hounds go on a drag hunt. Many of them are drafted from foxhound packs, which of course understand the scent of foxes, and they could well end up going after a fox. Drag hunting cannot replace the work of 26,000 hounds.
	Even if we give them 18 months, it will be impossible for most hunts to acclimatise their hounds to living in a new, almost semi-domestic situation. Hounds have a strict pecking order, with lead hounds, like a wild pack of dogs. Hounds put in twos or threes become extremely disorientated and often do a lot of damage to their kennels through frustration, and they become extremely unhappy. That is why so many vets think that the kindest thing to do will be to hunt the hounds for the final 18 months and then have them put downa point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has made.
	This is a cynical Bill, the last knockings of the old Labour class prejudice. Nowadays, new Labour tries to cloak this as an animal welfare issue, but it is nothing of the sort: it is good, old-fashioned class prejudice.

Michael Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my general committee will be delighted to hear that I am now a member of old Labour. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of Tory gain, but they were the same shouts that I heard before the 2001 election. I will face my electorate with a very clear conscience after taking this issue forward.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who spoke about the European Court of Human Rights and whether the Bill could face a challenge. She made it clear that, if the Government have given notice of intent with respect to a Bill, there could be no recourse to human rights legislation because those rights would not have been breached. The hon. Gentleman will remember that a ban on hare coursing was in the original Bill of a couple of years ago. That sent out a clear signal to everyone that, regardless of what happened to fox hunting, stag hunting and hare hunting, the Government had a clear intent that the activity of hare coursing would be banned. Due notice would have been given, which perhaps explains the hon. Gentleman's misunderstanding.
	I shall be brief because the House has spent enough time on this issue. Frankly, I believe that Members on both sides of the House would agree that Parliament has more pressing matters to deal with. Those people, however, who say that Parliament has those more pressing matters to contend with should not be the same people who argue for extra days to debate this issue. That is utterly wrong, and it is disingenuous of those people to make that argument.
	I speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and others, but I do so with a degree of reluctance because I would have preferred the matter to have been dealt with, done and dusted back in 1998, when my original private Member's Bill was talked out on Report. It would have been great to see the issues dealt with then, making today's long discussions redundant. When hunting is finally banned, as it will be under today's plans, I do not believe for one moment that anyone would seriously want to bring it back. If we were starting afresh and had a problem with fox predation, we would never invent the sport of hunting with dogs.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman referred to 1998, but he is as aware as I am that the Prime Minister promised publicly to end the hunting of wild animals with hounds by the end of the 1997 Parliament. He failed, and some of us are appalled that he and his colleagues are contemplating still further delay.

Michael Foster: I cannot recall those exact words from the Prime Minister. I do not believe that he actually said that it would be dealt with by the end of the 1997 Parliament. The manifesto commitment said that we would have a free vote on the issue. I regret the delay and believe that we should have dealt with the issue long ago, but I support the idea of specifying a reasonable period of time before the Act commences, as laid down in the amendment. I do so because I believe that the House has a duty to help those whom we want to encourage to switch to alternatives such as drag hunting. We need to allow time for that process to happen.
	I would like to explain how I envisage that happening. To switch to drag hunting, hunts would have to register with the Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association. To do that, they would have to register the land on which they intend to hunt. To do that, in turn, they would have to secure permission from the appropriate farmers or landowners, and I accept that that might take more than three months. So what time scale am I happy with? I think that a case for 12 months, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) suggested, could be argued. However, we should think about the hunting season for fox hunting, which tends to end in March. Although the resolution does not kick in until 31 July, the effect would be that the hunting season would end in March. The alternative that my right hon. Friend considered was ending perhaps at the end of November or the beginning of Decembersome three or four months before that. We are arguing about a period of only three or four months to ensure that all our considerations are dealt with.
	Rather than have the sort of disgraceful scenes that we have seen taking place outside the Houseand, unfortunately, inside the Chamberif people want to take to the streets and to cause violence, it is worth encouraging them, if they are so concerned, to express their displeasure in the ballot box.

Ann Widdecombe: I thank the hon. Gentleman and take the opportunity to congratulate him on the huge part that he has played in bringing about today's result. Can he provide me with any evidence at all that this periodas long as 18 months or, if to March, a little shorter than thatwill be used to run down hunts in an orderly and humane fashion rather than simply used as a period of grace?

Michael Foster: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. I believe that the Countryside Alliance and their advisers have misled the vast majority of people engaged in hunting to the extent that they did not believe that Parliament was serious about dealing with this issue and bringing it to a conclusion. I honestly believe that they did not think that this day would come. This day has come, so there is a very clear signal from this day forward that hunts will make changes.
	I know that the organiser of the Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association had some discussions with others during the period of my private Member's Bill to find out how hunts would convert. In fact, it was put to me that some of the more prestigious hunts in the country would be looking to act quite quickly so that they could grab the best pieces of land on which to hunt. The only other piece of evidence that I haveI am glad that the right hon. Lady asked her questionis an advert taken from this Saturday's Worcester Evening News. I do not believe for one minute that it will be the substitute that all hunts follow. Nevertheless, the Worcestershire hunt supporters club advertises a Round Rushock Ride on Sunday 26 September. It will start from Callimore farm, last for two and a half hours and be an approximately 12 mile pleasure ride with optional jumps. The entry fees for adult and junior riders are published. I am inclined to think that that is perhaps a snippet of evidence suggesting that hunts can have an alternative to what they currently do in chasing live quarries.

Gregory Barker: Anyone familiar with these sorts of events knows perfectly well that they are nothing like hunting and do not provide a substitute for it. They are something entirely different from hunting and the hon. Gentleman obviously has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Michael Foster: I am most grateful for that contributionas ever, very short on knowledge about what I have done to carry this issue forward. I went out with the Worcestershire hunt to see what it did and I found it most instructive to see how a hunt was organised. I was often put in a position where I was at the front of the field and I could see the fox running, despite its natural reaction to flee from its chasers, towards me. I recognised the skill in how the hunt was organised. As a lay person, one would have thought that the fox would try to escape any way it could, but by coincidence I was always there. On one occasion, the fox brushed past my legand those of the people accompanying me on the hunt. To show me how humane the hunt was, the fox went past my leg. Hunt supporters pretend that hunting as an activity is purely natural. I believe that that is a lie.

Ann Widdecombe: rose

Gregory Barker: rose

Michael Foster: Let me explain the relevance of that point. If there is a switch to drag hunting and if a hunt is organised in such a way that people can enjoy the pleasure of the ridehunt supporters tell me that that is what they wantthey can still have an enjoyable day in the countryside. Hunt supporters also often say, We are never there at the kill to see the end of the fox, so why on earth do we have to chase a live mammal? There is no point in it, nor any need for it. I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. It proposes a reasonable delay to smooth the transition. It will ensure that we end, once and for all, this cruel spectacle of killing a wild mammal just for sport.

Gregory Barker: I rise to speak with a great deal of sadness. The amendment to give a stay execution for 18 months to the noble sport of fox hunting signifies the reintroduction of a Bill that is vicious, illiberal and wholly unjustifiable.
	The Bill is an affront to every citizen who values liberty and tolerance. I am certain that, when all the arguments have been laid to rest and historians look back at this time, no one will see the measure in the context of animal welfare. The last time this measure came before the House, I sat through interminable Committee sittings. No convincing animal welfare arguments were made that proved that fox hunting was demonstrably more cruel to foxes than any other form of control.
	I have been involved in fox hunting, but I was involved in animal welfare organisations before I entered party politics. I know that it is cruel to shoot a fox and leave it to suffer, or to snare or gas a fox, but animal welfare forms no part of the nasty, vicious and illiberal argument put forward by Labour Members. The Bill is all about settling little scores. It is part of the little Labour shibboleth, and it represents the tick-box mentality of the brothers and sisters on that side of the House.
	What has made today so unpleasant is the look of glee evident on so many Labour Members' faces. They do not give a cuss about the people in the countryside who are going to lose their jobs. They could not give a monkey's for the people who, ultimately, will lose their homes, or for the people who will lose the sport that they have followed for years, and the friendship that goes with it.
	The Bill will cause real human misery. It may not be on a great scale, involving hundreds of thousands of people, but real distress will be caused to families and people who have known only one career and way of life. For many Labour Members, this is about getting one back for the miners. We have heard many nasty little jibes from Labour Members, who have said that the Bill pays the Opposition back for the miners. I think that we heard the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality say, Remember the steel workers. How nasty and backward looking is that?

Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gregory Barker: No. The hon. Lady did not give way to anyone when she spoke.

Claire Ward: I have not spoken in this debate.

Gregory Barker: In that case, I beg the hon. Lady's pardonalthough what I said was correct: she did not give way. However, I shall let her in when I have finished my point, and when she has finished laughing and cheering.
	The spectacle of Labour Members welcoming this Bill with glee is stomach churning. Although I rose to speak with sadness, I can tell the House that that sadness will be translated into bitter anger in the outside world. People will look at how casually Labour Members have trodden and trampled on other people's way of life, and thrown away rights that have been enjoyed for centuriesall for the sake of finishing the job that their party began. The spectacle is horrible to behold.

Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman has said that my Front-Bench colleagues are involved in some sort of payback for what happened to the miners. The Bill is not a payback: it is about doing the right thing. The point that Ministers made was that the Opposition, when they were in government and decided to close the pits, did not care two hoots about the livelihoods of thousands of people and families. We are trying to delay commencement so that we can talk to people about what is going to happen. That contrasts with what the hon. Gentleman's party did when it was in government.

Gregory Barker: I entered the House three years ago. The point that the hon. Lady makes is totally erroneous and wrong, but what the previous Conservative Government did had nothing to do with me. Their action does not inform my politics, but it is clear that there remains a huge amount of residual bigotry among Labour Members. The way in which they wallow in other people's distress is really unpleasant.
	The Bill shows the Government's total disregard for evidence. Once again, they have ignored the experts and sacrificed both principle and evidence in favour of political expediency. This is government and legislation for the fewthat is, the parliamentary Labour partyand not for the many.
	As I said when I began, this debate will be remembered not for the 18-month delay or for the arguments about animal welfare but because it is a pernicious and sectarian piece of legislation that runs totally counter to how our country is developing. We live in an increasingly diverse and pluralistic society. More and more of our time and trouble in this House is devoted to making sure that the rights of minorities are protected. We go out of our way to try to understand the point of view of other people. We may have very little in common with them, or very little understanding of them, and we may even speak a different language and have a very different culture, but those people add to the diversity of our society. So why is the Labour party blind to the fact that a rich element of our island's culture is being obliterated?
	The small minority involved in fox hunting has rights too. I understand that Labour Members may disapprove of fox hunting, and that they find it distasteful. However much their views may be based on incorrect facts or a lack of evidence, they are perfectly entitled to hold them, but they are not entitled to use their position in this House to criminalise hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people.
	Yet that is what Labour Members are doing, and they are abusing the parliamentary process as they go about it. I am glad that we have a second Chamber to revise Government legislation. I sincerely hope that the House of Lords exercises its role properly, and that it sends this nasty, pernicious and sectarian Bill back to this House.
	There has to be a check on the rule of the mob, and on the majority imposing its views on the minority. History will not judge this Bill on grounds of animal welfare or on how toffs dress up. It will judge it on the way in which Labour Members were prepared to be so intolerant, illiberal and bigoted. They want to impose their narrow little view of the world on a group of people about whom they could not really care less.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman says that he hopes that the other place will reject this measure once again. Does he consider this Chamber to be sovereign in this Parliament? How many times must this Chamber arrive at the same decision before he accepts that that decision represents the democratic will of hon. Members? Does he genuinely believe that the House of Lords has the right to reject time and time again any measure that he happens to disagree with?

Gregory Barker: That is exactly why the House of Lords is there. The hon. Gentleman talks about the will of this Chamber but, in this evening's vote on Second Reading, the majority in favour of the Bill was very small. That is the first time that that has happened. I was a Teller when the Bill was last considered by the House, and 319 hon. Members voted for a ban on that occasion. Today, most Members of the House of Commons either voted against the Bill, or abstained from voting, or absented themselves. In no way can that vote be summed up as representing the great will of Parliament.
	The Parliament Acts were not invented to be used to force through the bigoted views of a minority in the House of Commons.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend has spoken about how hon. Members abstained or absented themselves, but is he aware that the Prime Ministerwho was here for Prime Minister's Question Timeabsented himself from all the Divisions? What does he make of that?

Gregory Barker: It is the cowardice and double-speak that we have come to expect

Claire Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the word that he just used about the Prime Minister.

Gregory Barker: Which particular word, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Cowardice.

Gregory Barker: I shall happily withdraw cowardice.

Andrew Robathan: Are we not allowed to say cowardice?

Ann Widdecombe: Try timidity.

Gregory Barker: Yes. Timidity and lack of courage might perhaps have been better choices of words on this occasion.
	The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. It is clear tonight that the majority in this House have proved themselves totally intolerant and illiberal. They will reap the whirlwind for it.
	The test of the courage of the minority has only just begun. I know for certain that the minority who support and practise country sports will certainly continue to fight the ban every inch of the way. If Labour Members think that this is the last they have heard of it, they are very much mistaken.

Claire Ward: I feel some sense of comfort in contributing to this debate, because I can begin to see some light at the end of what has been a very dark tunnel for Members of Parliament and people throughout the country who want an end to fox hunting. We have spent many hours over my seven years as a Member of the House debating whether to ban fox hunting. For a range of reasons, and despite the clear will of the House, as demonstrated through numerous votes on numerous occasions, it has sometimes seemed that achieving a ban on fox hunting was almost beyond our grasp. Now, we have a chance to get the ban through.
	I am astonished that the Conservative party and its Front-Bench spokesperson have indicated that were the Conservatives to form the Government after the next general election, one of their first priorities would be to legislate to reverse the ban on hunting. Frankly, it is time to move on. There is no doubt that our constituents consider many other issues to be importanthealth, education and many more areas to which they want this House to turn its attention. We must, finally, put an end to this.

David Cameron: The hon. Lady mentions what an incoming Conservative Government will do, but does she recognise that it is a lot easier to undo legislation and allow people to do things than it is to make them criminal, which is why this Bill has taken so long and been so difficult?

Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman can continue to believe in his dreamland that the Conservative party will form the next Government and be able to restore hunting, but I think that as time goes on it will be extremely difficult for any Government to reverse a ban on the idea that it is acceptable for people to chase across the country in pursuit of a fox as a form of sport and to watch it being torn apart by hounds. We live in a modern, 21st century country that should be looking at a range of other activities rather than a barbaric and unacceptable one.
	We have heard a lot about minorities. Of course our job should be to take account of minority views, but not where those minority views are, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other Members, wrong and unacceptable. Nor should those minority views be held above the views of the majority. A clear majority of people in the country wish to see a ban on fox hunting.

Gregory Barker: In that case, what view does the hon. Lady take of al-Hamid?

Claire Ward: That is a quite separate issue, and I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order for speaking about it on the procedural motion. Religious issues are very different, and they are not the issue here. We are talking about a sport in which people chase across the country as a form of Saturday or Sunday morning entertainment in order to see a fox being torn apart. I do not believe that that is acceptable, and that is clearly the view of this House.
	I do not wish to spend huge amounts of my time going over the issues on hunting when the debate is clearly about the procedural implementation of legislation. My name is appended to amendment (b), which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and I should have preferred the ban to be brought in much earlier than is being proposed. However, I accept that negotiations and discussions have taken place and that the Government have thought carefully about how to ensure some balance so that the hunting community can look at the issueseven if it has had seven years to recognise that a ban was very much on the cards. That community now has perhaps 18 months to consider what it is prepared to do to find alternative uses.

Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the hon. Lady, as I have asked several others who favour the extraordinary 18-month period, what the evidence is that that time will be used to run down hunts in an orderly and humane fashion rather than as a period of grace in which to do what the hon. Lady rightly describes as the unthinkable?

Claire Ward: I completely agree with the right hon. Lady's sentiments. If it were up to me and I were Prime Minister, I might have a different view tonight. However, I accept that we need to give the hunting community a reasonable period in which to find alternative employment, and in some cases alternative accommodation.
	We recognise those needs, but the right hon. Lady has rightly identified issues that we need to continue to pursue during the 18 months. When we pass the Bill today, that should not be the end of the matter. We should encourage the Government to make sure that they encourage the hunting community not just to start to wind down but to make sure that the next season is the last for hunting. The hunting community has had the opportunity to consider this for the past seven years, and I am sorry that it has not done so. It has clearly been given poor advice and led very badly by the Countryside Alliance and other representatives within the hunting lobby. I hope that it will now recognise that once a ban is in place, we expect people to obey the law. It is not for them to determine otherwise or lead people to disobey the law.
	I hope that people will have the opportunity to consider drag hunting and other forms of employment. After this afternoon's monstrous behaviour outside and inside the Chamber, I wonder whether they have the courage to address the real issues that face the hunting community. I hope that they do, but whatever we do tonight in voting for a delay of 18 months, or more or less, it is ultimately for the other place to decide whether to agree with us or to ensure that the Parliament Act must be used. That is what is at stake when the Bill goes to the other place.
	I secretly hopeI am making it public nowthat the other place votes against whatever I decide tonight in terms of the delay, because then the Bill will be introduced three months after its date of implementation. We are almost left to rely on those in the other place to do some business for us. If they should decide to support the position of the Government and of this House, they will allow a reasonable delay, and I would hope that people accept that the time for hunting has come to an end.
	It is not time for us to continue to debate whether to ban hunting. It is time to ban hunting, and it is time for this House to move on to the many other important issues that our constituents want us to address. I look forward to seeing the ban on hunting.

Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) said that the Countryside Alliance has had seven years to get used to the idea of a ban. As most hon. Members will know, I hold no brief for the Countryside Alliance. I am sure that many of its members are very nice people, but I do not happen to share their views. However, this Government have had seven years to honour their pledge, but now find it necessaryat the dog-end of a Sessionto use the Parliament Acts, wholly improperly, to ram through legislation that could and should have been debated properly by this House. Having been in the House for 21 years, I regard that as a great abuse of the procedures of this House.
	I shall, given the opportunity, vote against the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. The future Lord Banks of Riverside tells us that he can live with his conscience. He could probably sleep with it, because it would not take up much room in the bed. I have voted, on every occasion I have had the opportunity to do so during my time in this House, to end the hunting of wild animals with dogs. I do not normally consider myself a class warrior, and that is not why I have voted in that way. I have done so because it is a wrong, cruel and outrageous practice whose time has expired. It needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history along with cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting. The issue is as simple as that.
	When I went through the Lobby earlier this evening to vote for the Bill as it stands, imperfect as it is, I hoped that their lordships would have the opportunity to fine-tune it and deal with some of the very real issues relating to employment, the welfare of the dogs and other matters arising from the implementation of what will become an Act. I had hoped that the other place would be given that opportunity. When I went through the Lobby, the Government Whip on duty said, There'll be another vote at about 9 o'clock, comrades. Well, comrades and brothers, let us see what Labour Members are made of. I voted in that Lobby for a ban, not a delay and certainly not for an 18-month delay thatas my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) clearly demonstratedis nothing to do with animal welfare or reasonable implementation. A delay is not supported by any reputable animal welfare organisation. It is simply a cynical ploy, at the Prime Minister's behest, to kick this issue into touch until after the next general election.
	When the Minister introduced the motion, he said that he supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham. The Minister said that the 18-month delay would see the measure introduced before the 2006 cubbing season. What about the 2005 cubbing season? I suppose, comrades, that that does not matter. Well, it does. The delay is a cynical ploy. Members of Parliament cannot say, Lord, make me virtuous, but not yet. Either we do this or we do not. I shall vote against the delay and in doing so I shall vote for the Bill as it stood. I shall wait to see what everybody else in the House is made of.

Ian Cawsey: I did not intend to speak at this point in the debate, but I wish to address some of the issues that have been raised. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) who, in all matters of animal welfare, I think of as my hon. Friendif not a comrade. I also agree with the comments by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) about whether a delay is right. It is a narrow point. The House has now made its decision on what should happen to hunting in general, and I shall focus on the issue of a delay.
	I am the chairman of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and, about a year ago, the Kennel Club wrote to me to say that it had no view one way or the other on the rights or wrongs of hunting and that it was a matter for Parliament to decide. However, it was worried about the dogs used in hunting. I met the Kennel Club and several other dog organisations, rehoming organisations and animal welfare groups, and we decided that I would recommend to APGAW that it commission a working group to look into that point. The working group met for the tail-end of last year and most of this year and finally published a report in the week before the summer recess.
	People often refer to the APGAW report as though it were all the work of Members of Parliament, butas the hon. Member for North Thanet will knowit is not unusual for the group to commission reports, and the contributors consist of people working in the relevant areas. The group that considered the welfare implications for the dogs of a ban on hunting was made up of Caroline Kisko, the secretary of the Kennel Club; Clarissa Baldwin, the chief executive of the Dogs Trust; Chris Laurence, head of veterinary services at the Dogs Trust; Dominic Rudd, the head of operational services at the RSPCA; and Dr. Rachel Casey, a vet and expert in dog behaviour and welfare from the University of Bristol.
	We took much evidence from many groups and individuals over a long period. Dr. Casey and her colleagues at the University of Bristol spent much time visiting hunts. We received information from more than 30 hunts from various parts of the country that took part in different types of hunting and had different sizes of pack. It was a truly representative sample.

Michael Foster: Did the Countryside Alliance take part in the exercise?

Ian Cawsey: It did, and it gave written and oral evidence. The Scottish Countryside Alliance also gave evidence, as did the Council of Hunting Associations and numerous groups representing the various breeds of dogs used in hunting.
	We concluded that the wholesale destruction of dogs in the event of a ban could be avoided and our report contained six recommendations on what could be done, although it is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Some dogs could be kept for breeding and show purposes. The Kennel Club made the point strongly that the Masters of Foxhounds Association holds the pedigree information for those dogs, and that if it were to release it that could move a number of dogs into that side of the dog world. The Kennel Club has helpfully offered to meet the association and to offer discounts to allow progress to be made on that option.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned drag hunting. We met representatives of drag hunting, who agreed that it had possibilities. It was also pointed out that when there was a voluntary ban on hunting during the foot and mouth crisis, hunts found alternative activities for their packs and continued to exercise them. Hunts also managed to keep hunt followers together. Of course, there have been media reports that people involved in hunting are already meeting to discuss what they can doas they have in Scotland, where hunting with dogs is already banned. Other people may choose to retain the packs for other uses. One of my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench spoke about fallen stock services, which would be a commercial decision.
	Rehoming is controversial. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about some of the difficulties involved in that. We met people who have undertaken it, however. More to the point, every organisationincluding the Countryside Allianceaccepts that it can be done. The only argument between the organisations was about the scale of the practice. Clearly, there are opportunities.
	The Scottish Countryside Alliance pointed out that when hunting was banned in Scotland, several hunts drafted dogs to other countries, including Ireland, France and some eastern European countries. We were rather lukewarm about that idea, and it was one of the more controversial points in our report. We were hesitant, because our main interest was the welfare of the dogs. How can we know what the welfare conditions will be in another country? However, provided there are adequate safeguards, it is something that could be considered. There is also euthanasia, which has already been mentioned, but we think that we can avoid wholesale destruction.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked who would do anything with the extra time. That is an important point. Caroline Kisko addressed the Council of Hunting Associations on what could be done for dogs in the future and several people from hunts told her that they wanted information and help because they did not want to destroy their dogs. They said that if a ban were introduced quickly they would not be able to find out about the alternatives. The amendment gives them the opportunity to do that.
	My view is that we can split hunt dog owners into three categories, although I would not claim that they are all of equal size. First, there are those who want to make as big a point as possiblethey will even destroy their dogs just to make their point and get publicity, and they will do that no matter what we do or say in this place. Secondly, there are those who will continue to look after their dogs and who want no help or advice from anybody elsethey will find alternatives and just get on with it, thank you very much. Finally, there are those who would like to do that, but who want some help and guidance.
	We spoke to every reputable rehoming organisation and our report recommends a process involving hunts and rehoming organisations, with a clearing system with which DEFRA could assist. That would ensure that the dogs have a safe and happy future. The problem with that proposal is that every rehoming organisation told us, We could do it over a period of time, but we could not do it quickly. If you restrict us to three months, you will make it impossible. By accepting the 18-month amendment, we could look after dogs much better. The Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and all the dog rehoming organisations to which we spoke would be on our side.

Michael Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way once again. Does he conclude that if the House of Lords were to reject the proposal for a commencement after 18 monthsif the Commons accepts itso that the default setting returns to three months, any impact on dogs in terms of adverse animal welfare implications will be entirely their responsibility?

Ian Cawsey: I suppose that is the logical conclusion of what has been said, but I really wanted to address

Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) cannot get away with that point. The three-month commencement is in the Bill. If the Government had chosen to amend it, they could have done so, but they would have been unable to use the Parliament Act.

Ian Cawsey: I do not want to get into that argument. I am trying to set out the findings of our working group.
	I do not know how many dogs or hunt owners will be in the three categories I described earlier, but I know that there are hunt people who want time and support to do the best for their dogs. If we do not give them that chance by voting for the motion, I fear that we shall be putting them in an extremely difficult position. If we give them no time, we give them no chance. We should give them an opportunity. The Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the rehoming organisations and I will very much welcome that opportunity, which is why I signed the amendment.

Andrew Robathan: This is a shameful day for the House of Commons. We are seeing mean-minded, chippy bigotry brought into play.

Ann Widdecombe: Am I chippy?

Andrew Robathan: I hear my right hon. Friend, but mean-minded, chippy bigotry is being brought into play by people who are not particularly interested in animal welfare.
	We heard earlier about miners and steel workers. Actually, I care when miners or steel workers lose their jobs, as I care when other people lose their jobs.

Elliot Morley: So do I.

Andrew Robathan: But not, apparently, most other people on the Labour Benches.
	We are discussing the 18-month delay. As has already been said, it is a pathetic, cynical electoral ploy by the Government. I know that the name of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality is on the amendment and that he supports it and will accept it. That is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament. Either hunting with dogs should be banned, or it should not. Surely, that is clear to even the most stupid person on the Labour Benches who supports the amendment[Interruption.] I think I am allowed to say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The measure will deliver hunting death by a thousand cutsthe lingering death of a fox shot by those alleged marksmen. As somebody who has shot more rifle bullets than most people in this place, I can tell Members that many foxes shot by people who pretend to be marksmen will die a lingering death. But of course that is part of what the Government want. A person thinking of renewing their hunt subscription would say, Why should I bother? If they were thinking of buying a new box, they would say, I won't bother. If they were thinking of buying a new hunter, they would say, It's only for 18 months, why should I bother?
	That is the Government's ploy. They will kill off hunting slowly so that there are no great protests. In particular, a kennel man or a huntsman will say, Well, I'd better get another job. They will then be unable to claim the compensation that the Government do not want invoked under human rights legislation.
	The measure is disgraceful and the Government are yet again exposed as cynical in the extreme. I wish people outside this place could see the glee on the faces of people who do not care much one way or the other about hunting. An ex-Ministerit would be invidious to name himtold me, when he was still a Minister, that he did not care tuppence about hunting, but that he would vote for a ban because between 200 and 300 of his constituents really cared about it and they were all members of his constituency Labour party.
	A Liberal Democrat MPshe shall also remain nameless

Angela Eagle: That is narrowing it down quite a lot.

Andrew Robathan: But at least I am not sexist.
	The Liberal Democrat MP told me, I really don't care, but I keep getting all these letters so I'll vote for a ban. That is the truth. Most people in the Houselike most people outsidedo not really care very much about hunting but they will subject the few people who hunt to the loss of their sport, and for many, of their livelihood, for petty, mean-minded reasons.

Julian Lewis: I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard the Today programme this morning, when Mr. George Monbiot of the left-wing press was boasting of the fact that the measure, if carried, would be the biggest blow of a social nature to the upper classes since the abolition of the hereditaries in the House of Lords. It is good to have that sort of admission.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I did not hear Mr. Monbiot, but of course that is unfortunately what a lot of people think. [Interruption.] I wish that the Labour Members who are laughing could have listened to the farmer who telephoned me this morning. He certainly was not a toff; he was not an ex-Guards officer, unlike me. I do not hunt, incidentally. He rang me and asked, Why are the Government doing this? How will I get rid of my dead calves? I don't hunt, but I let the hunt across my ground. Why are they doing it? That is what many people in the countryside think. They want to know why the Government are persecuting them.
	This is a misuse of Parliament. It is an abuse of democracy. Parliament is made up of two Houses, not just one, and the House of Lords was reformed, badly, by the Government. This is a complete abuse of the Parliament Acts. Frankly, this should be a day when people are ashamed of the House of Commons. Someone will say later that this is a great day for the House of Commons. It is a shameful day for the House of Commons. A majority of bigoted people are imposing their will on a minority of people who wish to do something that those in the majority do not wish to do.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat here all afternoon, and I have listened to quite a lot of nonsense. As with previous hunting debates, there is a lot of ill-informed comment by Members, particularly Labour Members, who think that they know something about hunting when they actually know very little, and I want to come to one or two of those points.
	One could not get a more cynical motion than the timetable that we are discussing. This is purely about saving the Prime Minister's political skin because he does not want the destruction of hounds and people losing their jobs ahead of a general election. That is what the motion is aboutnothing more, nothing less. Ministers seem to think that the opposition to this dreadful Bill will go away, but this is a very sad day for my constituents. I represent more hunts and therefore more people who have jobs in the hunting world than any other Member of Parliament. Earlier this afternoon, I heard Labour Members laughing at the prospect of job losses in my constituency, and I regard that as an utter disgrace. Notwithstanding that, this is a cynical measure designed to save the Prime Minister's face, and it comes on top of an already bad Bill and an abuse of parliamentary procedures.
	The debate has been interesting in one respect: the right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who is a lawyer, very clearly went through the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. She very clearly read out article 1 of the European convention on human rights, which is about people's enjoyment of property rights. As a lawyer and having had advice from the Government and the Committee's lawyers, she said that the Government would be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, if they did not give adequate notice. So if the Government do not get the amendment and go back to the original three-month proposal, they could well find themselves in breach of that Act.
	This is only a suggested amendment, which involves a totally different procedure from what we normally have in the House. If the Minister is right and if their lordships were to refuse to pass the Bill or passed amendments with which the House disagreed, the suggested amendment would fall. The Minister made that quite clear from the Dispatch Box tonight. If that is the case and the Government go back to their original Bill, with only three months' notice, they will very rapidly find themselves in the European Court of Human Rights.

Alun Michael: rose

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I happily give way to the Minister; perhaps he can clarify that point.

Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it is important that hon. Members understand the position, so that there are no misapprehensions of the sort that have been put about in some unfortunate speeches that have been made today. I have signed the declaration on the basis of firm legal advice that there are no human rights transgressions or problems in relation to the three-month period. We want a longer period because we are trying to be reasonable. We are trying to draw in people to accept the law. Some Conservative Members do not want to be reasonable, but we are trying to persuade people to respond reasonably to the legislation that is going through the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept what the Minister has said in good faith, but I ask him in good faith, as he has signed the declaration that the Bill is human rights compliant, if we find subsequently that it is not compliant, will he resign? That is what he ought to do in honour if he proves to be wrong, given what he has just stated. He might well find that he is wrong, but the courts will, no doubt, be asked to adjudicate on that matter.
	A number of other points were made about the timing. The Minister is right: one of the reasons why the Government are doing this is to try to appear reasonable, but whether hunting is banned tomorrow or in 18 months' time makes no difference whatsoever to my constituents. They will protest in every possible way that they can, and, provided that it is lawful, I will support them in that effort every inch of the way, until the day when people are not allowed to hunt.
	The measure is purely cynical. Why will the ban on hunting have a different commencement date from that on coursing? The only reason is that there are many more people involved in hunting than coursing, so hunting is more politically sensitive than coursing.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman told the House that he would support any legal protest that his constituents chose to mount in the run-up to the final end of fox hunting. Will he support the people outside the House who tonight are saying that they will break that law after it comes into effect?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I chose my words carefully because I knew that a Labour Member would intervene on me to make precisely that point, and having chosen my words carefully I have my thought processes in order. Of course I could not possibly support anyone who was thinking about breaking the law. I could understand it, but that is a different matter. I understand people who feel so passionately about the matter that they may well break the law. I do not support that in any way, but I understand that it may well happen.
	Will the Minister tell us the likely cost of policing a ban? Certain police forces have a budget line for doing that, so he should know what the cost would be. He should not reiterate his earlier nonsense that the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks that it will cost no more than policing the anti-hunt protests at present, but he should ask the chief constable of Gloucestershire because I am absolutely certain that he would receive a different answer.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman calls my comments into question, yet the assessment was not mine, but that of the chief constable who acts as the spokesman on these issues for ACPO. I have discussed the matter on several occasions with a variety of chief constables and they take a careful and considered view. The formal view that was made public last week was that the cost of policing a ban on hunting would be roughly equivalent to the costs of policing the protests that continue at present because of the existence of hunting.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister and understand that he was citing ACPO earlier. Time alone will tell whether the assessment is right or wrong.
	I wish to address one or two practical issues in the short time available to me. Some Labour Members have been hunting once or twice and think that they know everything about it, and several spoke about the future of hounds. I have hunted all my life and know a thing or two about hounds. A great deal of space is required if one is to look after them. Their temperament is such that they do not make house pets, so it will be difficult to find homes for them. Homes will be found for some of them, and the more the better because I would like to preserve as many hounds as possible. Someone who loves nature and animals would naturally want as many hounds to be preserved as possible. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) has spoken to all these so-called experts, but I can tell him and the Minister that whether hunting is banned in three or 18 months, many thousands of hounds will have to be destroyed as a direct result of the measurethere is no doubt about that.
	Labour Members have talked about the alternative of drag hunting, but I know as someone who has hunted all his lifemy hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) also made this clearthat drag hunting is no substitute for fox hunting because it is totally different. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said that he was put where the fox happened to be when he went out with the Worcestershire hounds, but I suspect that that happened by pure chance. Foxes are wild creatures that do not necessarily run over the same places. However, a drag hunt requires a trail to be laid over specific land. Many farmers will not allow drag hunts to go over their land because of the damage to land that they can cause. Fox hunts can damage land, but farmers allow them to take place because they control foxes.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), whom it is a pleasure to follow, said that monumental and staggering levels of ignorance have been displayed today. There has been talk of barbarism and unacceptable animal cruelty, but all hunting takes place on private land and the hunts have permission from landowners and farmers. Are Labour Members really saying that those landowners and farmers would give the hunters permission to go across their land if the act was so cruel and barbaric? Of course they would not.
	The Bill will not save the life of one single fox, hare or stag. In fact, we well know that the number of foxes killed on the roads far exceeds the number killed by hunts. The same is true of hares. Representing a Norfolk constituency, as I do, that has a pack of hounds and large shooting estates, I know from talking to keepers that the shooting and snaring of foxes is far more cruel than the hunting of foxes. There has never been a case of a fox going away wounded from a pack of hounds, but we all know that many foxes go away wounded from rifle shots or spend a long time suffering a slow, lingering death in a snare.
	I was talking to a keeper the other day who was on the demonstration this afternoon. He is under instructions from his employer to control and snare foxes. He told me that the fox in a snare is humanely dispatched most times, but not always. Sometimes a snare gets dislodged and the fox suffers a long, lingering death.

Desmond Swayne: The New Forest used to have a deer huntthe New Forest buckhounds. As a consequence of no longer having that hunt, the forest can support a much lower deer population than it previously did. The buckhounds never killed many deer, but they dispersed the deer population throughout the forest. Now, the deer congregate as far away from the tourists as they can, in those areas where the Forestry Commission estimates they do the most damage. It therefore culls far more than it used to. As a result, the deer population is much smaller than it was.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right and has a great deal of knowledge on the subject. One could add the case of Exmoor to his example. The hunting of stags on Exmoor maintains a balance in the population. Farmers do not go out and shoot stags on Exmoor. However, if hunting is banned, they will shoot those stags because they can get quite a lot of money for the carcase.
	I believe the Countryside Alliance and the Exmoor hunting groups when they say that if hunting is banned, the red deer population on Exmoor will be in peril. There are estates in my constituency that maintain a balance in the fox population. They do not kill every fox because they maintain a balance between fox hunting by the local hounds and the shooting interest. If hunting is banned, many of those farms and estates will shoot and control every single fox.
	The same applies to hares. I was talking to a landowner in my constituency who uses her farm for regular meets of the local hare coursing club. As a consequence, she employs a full-time keeper to preserve the habitat. She has made it clear that if hare coursing is banned, there will be a free-for-all. The hares will be controlledthey will be shotand there will be very few left. That is the law of unintended consequences.

Desmond Swayne: The key point is that the habitat will be lost. Would the hare have survived modern intensive farming methods were it not for a sport that has preserved its habitat, which is available not just to hares but to all wildlife?

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I will not digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you would rightly call me to order.
	One of the points that has been completely overlooked by the Labour Members who have spoken in the debate is the contribution of country sports to habitat and to the countryside more widely. One of the saddest things of all is that it is the country people who pursue these sports who have been most vociferous and vocal in maintaining that habitat, and in protecting the countryside and preventing the spread of concrete and planning.
	I want to say a word or two about drag hunting because I believe that I am the only person in the House who has been a master of a pack of drag hounds. I therefore know a bit about drag hunting. Far fewer hounds are used in a drag pack and it is a totally different type of sport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out. A drag hunt is conducted at a furious pace; it is completely unsuitable for young children. It is also unsuitable for qualifying point-to-pointers and national hunt horses, a point that has been completely overlooked. Those horses have to qualify with hunts; they will not be able to do that with drag hunts. Again, ignorance comes into playpeople just do not understand the full consequences of an outright ban. Furthermore, what good is drag hunting to all the thousands of people who follow hunting on foot or in their car? For them, hunting is a way of life and a form of recreation that means a great deal to them.
	On a number of occasions when I was master of Cambridge University drag hounds, the hounds, who were all drafted in from foxhound packs, followed their natural instinct, which was to go off following a hare or a fox when they could. Obviously, if we were pursuing a drag hunt across farmers' land, with their permission, the masters of the hunt tried to stop the hounds going after hares or foxes, but sometimes that was impossible. What will happen under the Bill if the hounds from a hunt that has rebranded as a drag hunt accidentally chase foxes or hares? Will the Home Secretary's CCTV cameras on hunt routes pick that up? Obviously that has not been thought through in any way.
	As many of my colleagues have said, this is a sickening, squalid little Bill. We are seeing an abuse of Parliament. It is outrageous that the Bill is not being properly debated. There are many complex clauses and schedules on many different issues, not least on exempt hunting, and the Bill should go into Committee for proper debate, but it will not. There are many anomalies. I asked earlier whether it would be in order for hunts to rebrand as rabbit packs, and apparently it would be in order for all foxhound, harrier and beagle packs to do that. Are we really saying that there is any less cruelty to rabbits when they are hunted by hounds than there is to hares or foxes? What is the difference except that one animal is slightly smaller?

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham: No; I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
	The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that he feels very strongly about the divisions in society. He tells us that he wants to heal those divisions, to stand up for minorities and to protect minority interests. It is very sad that this House is following in the footsteps of the last Government to ban hunting completelythe Scottish Parliament did not introduce a complete banwhich was the Nazi Government in 1935. That Government persecuted minorities; this Government are also persecuting a minority.

Patrick Cormack: I will not attempt to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) in that last remark or in his expertise in hunting, both drag and otherwise.
	In the few moments that I have, I ask the House to be a bit pragmatic. This has been a very sad day for Parliament, as I explained in my speech on the procedure motion. Since then, it has become much sadder. [Interruption.] Labour Members who are making those noises should have some regard for people with whom they do not agree. I was as appalled by what happened in this Chamber this afternoon, and as vociferous in my condemnation of it, as any other Member on either side of the Houseprobably more so. Those thoughtless young men performed a terrible disservice to the cause of the countryside which they sought to espouse. There are wider implications, and those of us in the House who are concerned with our security will have to consider those things.
	Similarly, the very few people in Parliament square who set off firecrackers and frightened police horses should know better, because they of all people should know how to handle horses. I spoke to those people. I do not flinch at all in my condemnation of the tactics of the few. However, I put it to hon. Members who condemn huntingthey may be perfectly sincere in that; it is not my job to impugn motivesthat the vast majority of people in Parliament square this afternoon were decent, law-abiding people whom we would all be proud to have as constituents, whether we agree with them or not.
	The Bill has had its Second Reading, will have its Third Reading with a large majority, and will then go to the House of Lords having hardly been considered in this place. We are in effect signing a death sentence on the jobs of many of our constituents. We are also decreeing that a way of life that has been honoured in this country for centuries should come to an end.
	I think that there is a degree of cynicism in the motives for the delay. Despite that, I urge hon. Friends who spoke against it to think again. In an impassioned and rather intolerant speech about the countryside, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)he is not here nowsaid that this is all about not having hounds destroyed before the general election. I do not want them to be destroyed before the general election, after it or at any other time. [Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members would listen carefully. I do not want hunting to come to an end, but I am being entirely pragmatic and honest. I believe in the old motto that while there is life, there is hope. At the lowest level, even if the ban comes to pass at the end of July 2006, those whose lives are affected will have had some chance to make plans and adjust, and the police will have had some chance to decide on how to deal with the measure when it becomes law.
	However, I believe passionately in the countryside way of life and I want to go on fighting and, therefore, I do not want hunting to be banned by the time we goas we almost certainly willto the country next year. I want it to be a general election issue because I want the voters in my constituency and every rural constituency in particularI accept that many urban people support hunting, tooto have the chance to vote for a party that is pledged to repeal the measure before it has come into effect. [Interruption.] Yes, I do. If we allow the amendment that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr.   Banks) tabled to go throughI would have preferred the Government's proposal for two yearswe give people a chance to think again, and an opportunity to those for whom we purport to speak to have their say.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) told me this afternoon that he would like a referendum on hunting. I do not believe that that is necessarily practical, although I can see the superficial attraction of such an idea. However, I want the people of this country to have the opportunity to vote in the general election in the knowledge of what would happen. The general election will not be a single issue electionno general election ever is. We made the mistake in the previous election of believing that a single issue could dominate; it cannot and will not. However, hunting will be an important issue, especially in rural constituencies, and I want it to be an issue before the ban has been effected.
	I therefore urge my hon. Friends who believe that we are discussing only a gesture
	It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 15.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, put:
	The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I have five brief points to make, arising from today's events, in asking the House confidently to give the Bill its Third Reading. The first issue is the language and tone of debate. This is an important matter when debate has been so polarised and passionate. In particular, we need to hear a change of tone on the part of the Countryside Alliance in response to today's events. To its credit[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what I am saying, and act responsibly themselves. To its credit, the Countryside Alliance has called the disruption in Westminster unfortunate and unnecessary. I know that that is the view of its chairman and perhaps others. The press release goes on to say, however, that the disruption is ultimately the responsibility of those pursuing vindictive and unjust law. The Countryside Alliance should explain to its members the sincerity of the views of those who oppose hunting and why the House of Commons has decided on a ban. It should also explain that the Government have been responsible in seeking to assist those who have strong views on this matter. It needs to explain that the Bill is neither vindictive nor unjust and that using such language can appear only to excuse misbehaviour. The Countryside Alliance needs to tell its members to act responsibly and to help them understand the legislation and the options open to them.
	The remarks of some Conservative Membersfor example, those of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)may be due to the passion of our debate. He revealed the temptation to use violent language when he spoke about trampling on other people's way of life. His remarks totally ignored the strong and clear evidence with which Lord Burns wrestled, which was also a feature of our hearings in Portcullis House. Those of us seeking a rational debate over a long period of time have sought to engage with that evidence, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle talked about matters being pernicious and sectarian, and about this House criminalising people. The only people who are criminalised are those who act as criminals. That sort of language is self-indulgent and inappropriate.
	I make that point strongly because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), even though he wants hunting to continue, was responsible in arguing his case today. He said that he would obey the law and the ban on hunting while seeking to change the law. That is a responsible approach. We may disagree passionately across the Chamber, but I say to those who seek to lead the Countryside Alliance that by appearing to condone or almost encourage certain activitiesI am not sure that that is what they intendthey need to reflect carefully on the language that they use and start to help their members to understand the impact of the legislation and their responsibility to obey it.
	The second point is about illegal hare coursing, which some Conservative Members have spoken about. There is no reason to delay. We have a real problem not only with the cruelty associated with hare coursing itself, but with the attacks, intimidation and damage done by illegal hare coursing. In order to give the police the tools to do the job, it is necessary to move on from trespass as providing the basis of prosecution to the activity itself. I underline that point because hon. Members raised it on a couple of occasions today. I repeat that there is no reason for delay on that particular activity.
	The third issue is the purpose of the delay. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) quite properly questioned the reasons for delay and painted a scenario beloved of political commentators. I invite her and anyone willing to listen to consider in a straightforward and objective way the advantages of the delay. It will allow us to send a clear message to hunt supporters and those who seek to express their views in favour of hunting that they have one season, but that the law is changing, so they will not have to carry on for that final season because they can change their business and their activities. It is an offer of good sense.
	The right hon. Lady asked the pertinent question whether hunt supporters would use the extension responsibly and in an orderly way. As I said to her earlier, I cannot promise that, but I can encourage people to act in an orderly way. I can encourage those who have legitimately argued for a continuation of hunting to accept the will of the House and to start looking at that period of time as providing an opportunity for them to choose a different way from continued confrontation.
	I remind the House of the comments made by the police on this matter. They believe that the additional time will assist them in policing the results of a ban on hunting. Earlier, I repeated the comment made by the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to the effect that a ban on hunting might have a short-term impact but that, in general, the amount of policing needed to enforce a ban would be roughly equivalent to what is needed now to police protests against hunting.
	The time gap will also allow dogs to be trained and people to move into alternatives such as drag hunting. The provision of delay is a reasonable, responsible and moderating move by the Government. It confirms that the will of the House must prevail at the end of the day, but that that will be expressed in a reasonable way.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: No, as this is a very short debate. The hon. Gentleman must make his own contribution.
	I turn now to my fourth point, which was raised in the debate as though a major human rights issue were at stake. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) is Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and she made a significant contribution. She corrected many of the misapprehensions on this matter, and it is a pity that some Opposition Members did not listen and so repeated those same misapprehensions. She concluded that the 18-month delay until the proposed commencement date of 31 July 2006 would address in full the Committee's concerns about the Bill's effect on contracts for hunting.
	That very narrow point of contracts for hunting is the one area in which the Joint Committee said that a problem arose. It did not say that a ban on hunting or the Bill as a whole posed a human rights problem. In the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, the extra time being allowed meant that the Bill was compatible with human rights legislation.
	Our legal advice was that a delay of three months would be fine when it came to meeting the requirements of human rights legislation. However, not only do we have to meet those requirements in full, we also need to be seen to be generous to people who believe that there will be an impact. Our position has always been that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, even with its original commencement date of three months after Royal Assent. A longer period of implementation must make the Bill even stronger against legal challenge.
	Finally, I hope that those in another place will respond positively to the Bill that will reach them tomorrow. Constructive points were made in today's debate, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). His all-party committee and other organisations undertook responsible consideration of what will happen during the transition, when hunting moves from being an activity that is legally allowed to one that is banned.
	People should listen to what has been offered by animal welfare organisations, the RSPCA and others. It will always be difficult for some people, when their feelings are running high, to accept that an activity in which they wish to engage is being banned. However, it cannot be said that this has been rushed. We will give people time and opportunity to adjust to the fact that this House has determined that there should be a ban on hunting.
	I hope that their lordships will engage with the Bill that is sent to them and with the views and opinions that have been expressed in this House. I hope, too, that we will be able to come to a conclusion on the issue of hunting with hounds, as we have promised.

Owen Paterson: This is a sad day for the House of Commons. We have seen a disgraceful abuse of the parliamentary procedures to which the Government have access.
	In December 2002, the Government presented a Bill that the Minister said was based on evidence and principle. We now have a Bill to ban fox hunting. It is an utter disgrace that we have not had a full Committee process, nor any time today to discuss the economic and employment consequences of the ban. We have not talked about matters such as fallen stock, ormost important of allcompensation. Instead, we have had glib references to cruelty, which were not backed up by the evidence of the Burns report. The Bill is still full of anomalies and is utterly flawed. It is nonsense that it will be legal to hunt a sentient mammal with a falcon but not with a dog. The Secretary of State herself said:
	No Bill on a simple ban had ever been thought to be workable.
	Will the Minister confirm his suggestion that if the Bill is amended in the Lords to the form in which he originally presented it to the House last year, he will not just agree to further discussion but will suspend the Government's ill-advised proposals to impose the Parliament Act?
	I do not see how a pluralist democracy can function if a majority abuses its power to impose its will on a minority. When criminalising an activity, we as legislators should think long and hard about the impact of new laws. No matter how large their parliamentary majority, no Government can rule without the consent of the governed. It is particularly poignant that 15 September is Battle of Britain day, when we celebrate the defence of ancient freedoms in this country by a tiny number of brave men.
	The Government were elected to govern on behalf of all the people. Given the bitter divisions that this issue continues to provoke, I urge the House to vote against Third Reading, and so to vote for freedom and tolerance.

David Winnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the tremendous amount of work that he has done to ensure that the Bill is before us. There have been disagreements here and there, but he has devoted a great deal of his time, which is appreciated by the large majority of Labour MPs.
	I hope that, whatever their lordships decidewe have a pretty good idea what the decision will bethere will be no weakening of the Government's resolve. Having gone so far, there can be no doubt what we expect. I am sure that this Bill will be on the statue book by the end of this parliamentary Session, which is absolutely essential.
	The controversy over banning hunting with dogs is understandable. Reference has been made to bull baiting, the banning of which caused controversy when it was debated in 1800at the very height, incidentally, of a war with France. There were many opponents; indeed, they carried the day, saying that a ban was meddling, petty and to gratify personal motiveswhatever that was supposed to mean. Moreover, the critics argued in the House of Commons, it would just give additional means of vexing and harassing one another. Those are somewhat familiar arguments.
	Even bull baiting was considered so controversial at that time that a ban could not pass the House of Commons for some time. I take the view that the practice of hunting with dogs should have been abolished years ago. There was no justification for its continuing. Once the law has taken effect, many years from now people will wondernot only people of one political persuasion, eitherhow it was possible for hunting with dogs to continue into the 21st century. It is a barbaric practice, and it must come to an end.

Andrew George: Although we have debated the issue long and hard today, as far as the world outside is concerned, our debate will be dominated by the protest, which got into the House itself. Those who have spoken strongly and honourably on behalf of the pro-hunting lobby will be deeply embarrassed by the activities inside and outside the House that have brought shame on those involved. I hope that those actions will not dominate the remainder of debate on the Bill.
	A lot of people have complained about the amount of parliamentary time expended on the issue, and we do not want to spend much more. Clearly, that depends now on the approach taken in the other place. Will the issue be responded to properly and effectively, and will the other place attempt to supersede the powers and pre-eminence of the democratically elected Chamber?
	I hope that we shall have a Bill back in this House in a very short time indeed that has been accepted by the other place and after which we can move on to deal with the many other important issues that confront the British countryside.

Kate Hoey: Many hon. Members have said that we must return to this Bill and force it through in this extraordinary and draconian way because it is an issue of trust between the Government and the country. The introduction of this Bill is indeed about trust, but it is about a higher trustthe trust that people should be able to have in every Government, and especially a Labour Government, that they will protect minorities from bigotry and intolerance and will uphold liberty and freedom.
	Since 1997, the Government have claimed to act as the honest broker. My right hon. Friend the Minister has himself pretended to be the honest broker on the issue of hunting. However, the reintroduction of this banning Bill, and the way in which it has been done, makes it clear that that is not the case. The Government promised the country that legislation dealing with this emotive issue would be advanced on the basis of principle and evidence. The Government promised that prejudice and ignorance would not triumph, but the reintroduction of the Bill is precisely thatthe triumph of prejudice.
	I could quote many examples of my right hon. Friend the Minister saying that the future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal preference. He believed that the Bill originally brought before the House was a good Bill and he saw no reason why people should not support it. He then said that people had chosen to ban hunting because it was simpler to enforce. I am personally ashamed that a Labour Government should connive in this triumph of prejudice[Interruption.] I have always believed that the Labour party and the Labour Government stood for a tolerant and inclusive society[Interruption.]

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Lady agree that the evidence is cast iron that a ban on hunting with dogs will increase animal suffering, not reduce it? The baying and criticism from Labour Members does not undermine the fact that we have looked at the evidence and they have not. The greatest tragedy of all is that the ban is based on emotion and prejudice, not on fact and logic.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Not a single fox will be saved by the Bill. Indeed, many more will be killed in an even more cruel way.
	We cannot hide behind the pretence that the Bill is a private Member's Bill. It is the Bill of a Labour Government who propose to fly in the face of principle and the evidence. Two inquiries have been held, at vast public expense, and neither produced any evidence to justify a ban on hunting. A regulatory Bill was introduced, which my right hon. Friend the Minister said was based on principle and evidence. No fair or open-minded person could conclude that the evidence exists to justify this Bill or that it is in the public interest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 1 September 2004 that he had identified seven key challenges for the future of this country. He said that he had a key test for legislation, and that was whether it would in practical terms advance and improve the lives of Britain's hard-working families in the future. He must know that this Bill will not do that.
	In contrast to the opponents of hunting, the rural community has shown its reasonableness and openness to scrutiny. It has participated fully in the Government's inquiries and hearings and the hunting community has placed itself under an independent regulatory body.
	The reintroduction of this Bill is a betrayal of public trust and will be interpreted from this day on as an illiberal and intolerant act. I remind hon. Members that it also breaks the Labour manifesto commitment, which was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. Parliament is both Houses and not the Commons acting alone. We have heard a lot of spin from some hon. Members about the other place. They claim that it is Tory hereditary peers who have blocked hunting bills. That is nonsense.
	Since 1997, not only has no hunting Bill been returned to the House from the other place, but even if none of the hereditaries had voted, 80 per cent. of the House of Lords, including Labour peers, supported the Government's commitment to legislate on the basis of principle and evidence. Even if no Conservative peer had voted, 73 per cent. of Members of the other place supported regulated hunting and we could have had that system if the Government had not withdrawn the measure from Committee.
	The reintroduction of the Bill and the use of the Parliament Act show disdain for the parliamentary process. It shows contempt for the majority of Labour peersLabour peers!who sought a sensible outcome based on principle and evidence. I am dismayed by the spin used to hoodwink the country into believing that a fair, just and evidence-based approach would be taken on the issue, when that is not the case.
	The Prime Minister has said that he wants to govern in the interests of the whole country. He said that he wants a country at ease with itself. The Bill shows that there are still people who believe that prejudice and bigotry should triumph as grounds for legislation. We have seen similar things in all the world's worst regimes. If people do not like something, they want to ban it. We shall see the consequences.
	The Leader of the House will have identified with the protest we saw in the Chamber today, because it is precisely the kind of protest that he carried out some years ago[Interruption.] The Leader of the House may not have managed to get into the Chamber wearing a tee-shirt, but he certainly got on to a cricket pitch[Interruption.] What we saw today[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have thought that the events of today would have made the House want to conduct itself in a particularly orderly manner this evening. The hon. Lady should be heard in silence.

Kate Hoey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	What we saw today was wrong and we must all condemn it. However, we must remember that if laws are to be respected they have to be just. I talked to many of the people in Parliament square today; they are decent, law-abiding people who will lose their livelihood and their way of life, because of a small numberalthough, yes, there will be a large vote tonightof Labour Back Benchers who have a bigoted attitude to hunting and are determined to push the measure through.

Anne Picking: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. My question to you[Hon. Members: You?] Through the Chair, my question to the hon. Lady is: do you support the principle of collective responsibility?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we have heard enough.

Kate Hoey: I do not think that the question was really for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a free vote issue and the House will have the opportunity to give its view.
	If the Bill goes through the House of Lords and the Parliament Act is used, the Government may think that because we have postponed the measure, the issue will go away. However, I sincerely believe that it will be a poll-tax-type issue. The Bill is unsustainable; whatever is said, the law cannot be policed. We have made a huge mistake.
	I never thought that I would live to see a Labour Government cower before bigotry. That is unacceptable; it is a disgrace, and I am desperately disappointed that the Prime Minister has allowed it to happen.

Julian Lewis: It is a real privilege to follow what one can truly describe as an extremely brave speech by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
	I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but I have been provoked into doing so by the Minister's attitude in introducing the debate on Third Reading. I was astonished by his sensitivity about the language used by certain people today. He apparently regards it as inappropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) to talk about people's rights being trampled on, and he regards it as inflammatory for people from the Countryside Alliance to talk about their resentment at being criminalised. He is nodding; he confirms that.
	Where has the Minister been for the past number of years when terms such as rights being trampled on have been used time and again in the House without any suggestion that such language is inflammatory? Where was he during the debates on the reduction in the age of consent for homosexuality, when it was constantly alleged that young people were being criminalised by a failure to reduce that age of consent? So it is all right to use such language in favour of a left-wing cause, but it is inflammatory to use it in favour of the defence of country sports, according to our oh-so-sensitive Minister.
	I should like to make a couple of other brief points. Why has no one replied to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who suggested that there might just be a practical problem to carrying this law into effect? What will happen if a hunt starts out as a drag hunt, but the hounds end up following foxes? Will people be criminalised? Will they be prosecuted? Will they be fined? Will they be imprisoned? If the answer is no, I suspect that an awful lot of hunts will start out as drag hunts and end up as fox hunts.
	The other point, the crucial point, the absolute killer point that has been made time and again without satisfactory response from the people on the other side of the debate is how does it benefit animal welfare when the result of foxes being shot and snared is that more of them will die more horribly than die as a result of being hunted? The only conclusion that one can reach as a result of the failure of people on the other side of the argument to address that crucial point is that the Bill is not about animal welfare; it is about class envy; it is about class hatred; and it is the last flicker of conscience from those people on the left wing of the Labour party who have abandoned their principles in supporting the Government on every other policy and who are desperate to wring a petty victory from the litany of failures of the conscience of the left.

Douglas Hogg: I rise very much to support what my hon. Friends have said and to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). What she said was very courageous. She must have found it difficult to say, and I applaud her courage in saying it. There is at the end of the day a fundamental objection to the Bill
	It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 155.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement about the incident that took place in the Chamber this afternoon, which was linked to today's demonstration in Parliament square. I visited the square myself, and I am grateful to the police for the efforts that they made to keep the approaches to the House clear. However, eight men gained access through St. Stephen's entrance, using a forged letter inviting them to a meeting on the Committee Corridor. Once there, they were led to the small stairway at the north end of the Corridor, probably by a passholder, who was clearly exceeding his or her authority. On the stairway, the men took off their jackets and left them behind.
	The eight men rushed the Chamber entrance. Three were tackled and overpowered by Doorkeepers on duty. The remaining five entered the No Lobby and from there gained access to the Chamber, where they, too, were overpowered. On behalf of the House I want to pay tribute to the Officers and Doorkeepers concerned for their prompt and effective reaction. They demonstrated the highest levels of professionalism and the House, I know, is grateful to them.
	The eight men have been detained and are being interviewed by the police. When it was last reported to me, none of them had provided the police with his true name and address. None of the intruders possessed any offensive weapons. Clearly, the intrusion was a carefully planned operation and the Serjeant at Arms has asked the Metropolitan police to conduct a full investigation. It is not yet clear whether the passholder who apparently assisted the intruders was a member of staff, a member of the press or an employee of a Member: all those possibilities are being investigated.
	For tomorrow's sitting, I have asked the Metropolitan police to deploy a significant additional squad of police officers in the immediate vicinity of the Chamber until the House rises. Leave for security officers will be cancelled, if necessary, to provide an immediate assurance that such an incident cannot be repeated.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of your statement, will you confirm that you would deplore any briefing by hon. Members on either side of the House to the effect that a Conservative Member of Parliament let the invaders in[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Oliver Heald: It appears that such briefing is occurring, and there is not a scrap of evidence to support it.

Mr. Speaker: As I said in my statement, I am investigating all these possibilities; I ask the House to allow me to do so.

Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are considering the disgraceful events that we witnessed, will you also consider the fact that a female Member of this House was seriously assaulted when she was attempting to enter and was punched by one of the thugs outside? If this sort of behaviour is allowed to go on, all our democratic institutions are at risk. I ask you to interview the Member concerned to get all the details.

Jim Dowd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your statement, you announced that the people who violatedI put it no more strongly than thatthis Chamber had a letter of invitation to a meeting on the Committee Corridor. I presume that whoever

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman. The letter was forged. I say to the House that it is best not to question the Speaker on a Speaker's statement. I stated my case and the House should bear with me. We have a day to get through tomorrow, and it is important that we see that day through until the Adjournment. I ask the House to allow me to get through that day. When we come back we can have a reasoned discussion about how we proceed, but questioning me on my statement does the House no good.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take very careful note of any new statement that people who say they have information give to the broadcast media tonight and ensure that anybody who seems to   have been complicit is fully investigated, even though they may not necessarily be connected with the House?

Mr. Speaker: When I opened my statement I said that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would be involved in a full investigation.

Peter Bottomley: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is a refreshing change.

Peter Bottomley: May I put it to you, Sir, that the greatest risk today was of people being crushed to death against the railings outside the House? The police saved the demonstrators from that; otherwise, we might have had a repetition of the Hillsborough, Heysel or El Salvador tragedies.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Phil Sawford: On a separate but related point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that masked intruders were seen in the vicinity of my house and the home of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Member for Corby (Phil. Hope) last night and that they have publicly threatened to come back to intimidate my family and that of my hon. Friend, will you review the personal security of hon. Members and their families when they are not in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am always worried about any hon. Member who might feel threatened. However, I urge hon. Members not to raise such matters on the Floor of the House but to come and see me privately. I shall give every assistance and help that is possible.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the same matter because we must move on. I urge the hon. Member not to make it if it is on the same point.

PETITIONS
	  
	Road Safety

Tom Clarke: I am obliged, on behalf of more than 11,000 of my constituents, to present a petition, which is self-explanatory. It is my duty and privilege to present it.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of Coatbridge and Chryston declares
	That the Petitioners support campaigns for justice on behalf of victims of road accidents and their families and friends.
	The Petitioners further declare their strong support for campaigns to highlight the difficulties involved in defining words such as dangerous, careless and negligent in the context of motoring offences, and their call for new terms that reflect the seriousness of such offences.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation for the new motoring offences of motor vehicle manslaughter and aggravated motor vehicle manslaughter.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Royal United Hospital Bath

Andrew Murrison: I have been asked by Councillor Chris Watt to present a petition that he has raised and that has been signed by 1,103 people in the area served by the Royal United hospital Bath.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the Clear the Debt Campaign declares
	That the Royal United Hospital Bath has debt of 24.8 million, which it may have to pay back to the Government at a future date.
	The Petitioners further declare that if the hospital is required to repay the money, cuts for local health services in the Bath area will be necessary; and that cancellation of the debt would remove uncertainty surrounding local health services and future cuts.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to review the requirement that the debt incurred by the Royal United Hospital Bath be recovered.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Holland House

Ian Cawsey: It is my honour to present a petition on behalf of thousands of residents from Goole, Hook and the surrounding area regarding the future of Holland House, a private nursing home bought by PD Services, which has evicted the residents as it attempts to convert it into a secure unit. This loss of beds for locals is an enormous concern for the community, and the petition states:
	Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will call upon the Secretary of State for Health to hold a public inquiry into the provision of nursing care beds for the elderly, the inquiry to recommend proposals to ensure the adequacy of such provision, and to impose a complete embargo on all applications made by PD Services and like organisations to the National Care Standards Commissionnow the Health Care Commissionfor deregistration of existing nursing homes, including Holland House, and applications for a change of use of said properties to secure units for persons with personality disorders, until the outcome of such public inquiry.
	And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

COMMISSION FOR SOCIAL CARE INSPECTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Margaret Moran.]

James Plaskitt: I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for granting me the opportunity to have this important Adjournment debate.
	This case involves two of my constituents who are foster carers. Given the involvement of children and the obvious importance of protecting their identity, I shall refer to the couple only as my constituents. However, the case is known to the Minister for Children and we have corresponded on the matter.
	I want to raise the issue tonight because my constituents have been put in a truly intolerable situation as a result of professional failures and organisational incompetence. Although the matter is now, possibly, inching its way towards a resolution, this has taken far too long. The case has exposed very serious systemic failures, and we cannot afford to fail to apply the lessons that could be learned from this sorry situation. Many questions remain unanswered, and I wish to put them to my right hon. Friend this evening. My constituents and I are anxious to have the answers.
	I shall briefly outline the context. My constituents discovered that a 13-year-old boy who had been placed with them for fostering had a history of sex abusing. They had not been told this. That was obviously a profound and dangerous mistake, given that my constituents have young children of their own, and other children in their care. The boychild Xwas placed with my constituents by Northamptonshire social services, and the independent agency involved in the case was called Happen.
	Initially, my constituents took the view that an honest mistake had occurred. Attempts to resolve the matter amicably failed and, eventually, my constituents lodged a complaint against the agency. The first really sour incident in the story occurred at this point. Happen's response was to cast doubt on the previous and current fitness of my constituents as foster parents. Having failed to dissuade my constituents from making their complaint, Happen's staff visited their home and produced an agenda of concerns questioning my constituents' competence and reliability. Happen also indicated that it would take my constituents back to the fostering panel. It also told them that it was asking a social worker to investigate them. This aggressive response threatened my constituents with the loss of their reputation and their livelihood.
	The then National Care Standards Commission undertook an investigation. Two inspectors, Sandra Lemon and Jane Allen, carried out the investigation and concluded that the complaints against the agency could not be substantiated. Those two individuals later carried out an assessment of Happen's fitness for registrationa point that I shall come back to. Surprised by this finding, my constituents pressed the matter to a second stage review. This was carried out by Cathy Craggs and concluded in May 2003. Looking at exactly the same evidence, Ms Craggs concluded that the complaint was partly substantiated.
	Still dissatisfied, however, my constituents took the matter to a third stage review, which was carried out by Judy Downey and was concluded in March this year. Ms Downey's detailed report makes worrying revelations and reaches some very important conclusions. I have sent a copy of it to my right hon. Friend. The third stage investigation concluded, among other things, that the NCSC's inspection of Happencarried out, as I said, by the same two people who undertook the initial investigationhad been over-generous to the agency. The investigation also found that Happen was unable to substantiate its claims against my constituents. It also concluded:
	Considerable efforts were made by Happen to discredit
	my constituents. It also concluded that while Northamptonshire's own investigation into the affair had found a need for Happen to address its conduct, that was not picked up in either of the first two NCSC investigations. Finally, Ms Downey's report totally vindicated my constituents. She concluded:
	The NCSC should examine its practices in relation to this provider and review their fitness as a matter of urgency.
	Since that report, which was delivered in March this year, what has happened? First, the NCSC has become the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The name and initials have therefore changed, but it does not look to me as though the personnel or practices have changed too much. Anxious to see Ms Downey's recommendations acted on, I wrote to Linda Hoare, the south-east regional director of CSCI. My constituents also engaged a solicitor to represent them, and they, too, were in communication with Ms Hoare. Incidentally, she complained that she could not deal with two sets of correspondence on this matter. However, she wrote:
	I will of course do my best to ensure that any necessary improvements in the practice of the CSCI are carried out.
	At the same time, Staffordshire social services reacted to the findings of the third stage review. Peter Steel, its commissioning officer, concluded that his county would no longer use Happen. He communicated that view to a range of other west midlands social services departments, as his was the lead authority. Concern about Happen was also drawn to the attention of Northamptonshire, the original placing authority, which would obviously have an interest in the matter. It decided to check with CSCI, which replied that
	there are no indications of concern regarding the agency and its practices and outcomes from the inspection were positive.
	Three months after Ms Downey's report and call for urgent action, some social services departments were clearly doing the right thing. CSCI, however, which twice in its previous incarnation failed to undertake a proper investigation, was telling one local authority at least that all was well with the agency, while writing to me and my constituents assuring us that all necessary improvements would be made. I was dismayed by this comment from CSCI. In May, I wrote a further letter to Ms Hoare asking for an explanation.
	At that time, I also raised the matter for the first time with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. She replied that the CSCI complaints board would be conducting a review of its procedures to be completed in the summer of 2004. CSCI has since told me that a further inspection of Happen will be conducted in October. As for the astonishing comment made by CSCI to Northamptonshire that all was well with Happen, I still have not had an explanation; instead, I have had only a comment from Ms Hoare saying that she was not in post at the time. In fact, I think that she was.
	All that raises serious doubts in my mind about the competence of CSCI. The reputation of two outstanding foster carers has been placed in jeopardy, I think, to cover up professional failures. First, they were subject to incompetence, then to intimidation, and then they were totally let down by the inspecting organisation to which they turned. Either the inspectors did not inspect, or they did but opted to cover up what they found. Either is indefensible, given that not only reputations are at stake but the safety and security of children.
	In conclusion, I have some questions for my right hon. Friend. How confident can we be in the staff of CSCI? Is it mired in institutional self-preservation? What has happened to CSCI's review of complaints procedure? Has it concluded? If so, what was the outcome? Why is the complaints process so close to the inspection process, to the extent that the same people are involved? Surely that raises a conflict of interest and results in people being asked to inspect their own competence. Why are CSCI inspections apparently such limp affairs? How rigorous are the inspection criteria? When complaints are made about the very foundations of fitness, why are the inspections about superficial matters? Why are inspections, as in the case of Happen, pre-announced? Does not that further undermine their validity? Why, when it was deemed urgent in March, are some of the core recommendations of Ms Downey's first stage report still not being acted on seven months later? When will all those recommendations be acted on, and when will Happen be either sorted out or deregistered?

David Cameron: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He has clearly studied the matter closely. I want to put on recordthe hon. Gentleman may not know thisthat my constituent, Brian Henderson, a director of Happen Fostercare Ltd., contacted me about the debate. He has made a series of complaints to the commission, which are currently being examined. I think it important for the hon. Gentleman to be aware of that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appears that that was a speech rather than an intervention. I thought that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) had given way. Presumably, there was all-round acceptance that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) could contribute.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) on securing the debate and on diligently and persistently pursuing the issue on behalf of his constituents. I regret the difficulties experienced by his constituents. I wish to record my admiration for the enormous contribution that foster carers make to our society, and the wonderful work they do with some of the most disadvantaged children. If I have time, I shall describe some of the key measures that the Government are taking to improve support for foster carers; but first I want to respond to issues relating to this specific case.
	It is clear that the handling of the complaint made by my hon. Friend's constituents has simply not been good enough. I understand that the CSCI has itself acknowledged the amount of time taken to resolve the complaints. It accepts that they were not handled as quickly as they should have been, and has apologised to my hon. Friend's constituents for that. However, I have received assurances from the commission that action is being taken to improve the handling of complaints in future. I shall give my hon. Friend more details of that.
	A board has been established to review the effectiveness of the complaints arrangements and the way in which the organisation deals with them. The CSCI has also informed me that a new management team has been installed in the south-east region and that the team will aim to find a swift and satisfactory resolution for the complainants in this case. I sincerely hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. I am also pleased to hear that the commission has brought forward the annual inspection of Happen to 4 October. The inspection will be used, among other things, to review the fitness of the provider.
	Let me now deal with some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, who gave me notice that he would raise them. He asked whether I could be confident in the staff we have in the CSCI. I believe that we can be. The commission now has a completely new management structure, different from that of its predecessor, and is about to appoint a new regional director to this area. It has committed itself to a service user-focused approach to regulation and to trying to bring about real improvement in social care. Its underlying aims are to stamp out bad practice wherever it is found and to protect vulnerable people in care. I understand that the organisation is reviewing its methodology and systems to improve them where possible, no doubt learning from experiences such as this case.
	My hon. Friend asked if I felt that the organisation was mired in what he called institutional self-preservation. It has a statutory duty to promote the improvement of social care services. By its nature it has to be an outward-looking body and it was set up by Parliament to improve services for users and carers. The commission has a statutory duty to co-operate with other organisations. As I know from having worked with it recently, it is working very closely with Ofsted and other inspectorates on developing an integrated children's service inspection framework. That is going well. So in my experience, it is not an inward-looking organisation.
	What, however, has happened to the review of complaints procedure? My hon. Friend asked whether it had concluded, and if so, what the outcome was. The review continues, which is not a bad thing. I am told that there have been some early benefits that have been realised, particularly by introducing a much more flexible approach to the way in which complaints are investigated and reported. Whereas previously an inspection report had to be generated by each individual complainta process that is both slow and time-consumingnew arrangements established this summer enable complaints to be investigated and responded to much more quickly as stand-alone activities. The information arising from a complaint can then be captured in the next scheduled inspection report.
	The review of the complaints mechanism will continue through the autumn, with a view to further reform of the process. In the commission's opinion, the complaints system needs a comprehensive examination, as my hon. Friend doubtless agrees, which is why it is making proper time to consider the issues. I should add that the CSCI will assume responsibility for undertaking third-stage complaints of local authority social services functions from 1 April 2005. It needs to consider how to bring them into its complaints mechanism.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the complaints process is too close to the inspection process, whether the same people are involved and, if so, whether that jeopardises objectivity in administering the complaints mechanism. The organisation operates as a result of statute, so if the fault lies anywhere, it lies with us in Parliament and the way in which we configured the Care Standards Act 2000. The 2000 Act places a statutory complaints-handling responsibility on the commission. Investigations into complaints are therefore conducted as an inspection activity, using the commission's regulatory powers. It is not unusual for public organisations to do that, and provision is made in the commission's corporate complaints procedure for complaints about the commission itself to be considered by regional and national management structures. That provides a check on performance at local operational level.

James Plaskitt: Although the two functions are contained within the CSCI, does the Minister share my concern at the fact that, in certain instances, it is the same people who carry out those two functions, which is the cause of the potential conflict of interest?

Margaret Hodge: I concur with my hon. Friend's view that it seems odd that, in this case, the same people who carried out the regulatory procedure had previously investigated a complaint about the organisation. That was not an appropriate use of individuals' time, and I hope that the structure that the CSCI now has in place, which will ensure that complaints against the organisation are dealt with at regional and national management levels, will help. Of course, where complainants remain dissatisfied, they have the right to an independent review and for the matter then to be referred to the parliamentary ombudsman.
	My hon. Friend feels that the inspections carried out by the CSCI are limp affairs, partly because they are pre-announced, and that the inspection criteria are not tough enough. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him on that. Indeed, I have heard it argued by others in the social care field that CSCI is too prescriptive and interventionist, so there are obviously varying views. It inspects against a framework of regulations and national minimum standards, and there are currently 32 standards for independent fostering agencies. It tries to strike a proportionate balance between inspections based on national minimum standards and a focus on the quality of the service and the user experience. That is why people using services are consulted as part of inspections.
	Where concerns arise, a number of options are available to the CSCI, ranging from an informal word with a provider about a non-serious problemwhich is sensibleto issuing an urgent action notice or taking action through the courts and prosecuting providers in cases where regulations have been breached and service users placed at serious risk.
	To give some examples of the extent to which those powers have been used, the old organisation, the National Care Standards Council, undertook five prosecutions in 200304 and issued 5,750 urgent actions across all the services that it regulated. Since April 2004, when the CSCI became operational, it has taken more than 4,500 different enforcement actions to help improve regulated services where it had concerns. While the vast majority93 per cent.involve care homes, six have involved independent fostering agencies. If the CSCI finds gaps or weaknesses in regulations or standards, it will of course report them to Government so that we can take remedial action.
	My hon. Friend asked why some of the core recommendations in Ms Downey's report have still not been carried out. There has been unacceptable delay, partly resulting from the transition from the NCSC, and action was not taken as promptly as it should have been. Nevertheless, the CSCI has informed me that Happen was inspected in December 2003 and that the result was satisfactory. The original weaknesses that my hon. Friend drew to my attention with regard to employment practices have been looked at and recommendations made for improvement, but the weaknesses were not felt to be sufficiently serious to warrant deregistration of the agency.
	As part of the inspection process, local authorities were asked if they had concerns about Happen, but no particular concerns were raised about the agency. Furthermore, there have been no complaints against Happen since the complaint from my hon. Friend's constituents two years ago.
	I repeat that Happen will be inspected on 4 October. This will involve CSCI staff with expertise in inspecting fostering agencies and who have had no previous involvement in the case. In addition, the process will be managed from outside the Oxford area. The CSCI has a duty to ensure that its inspection is fair but proportionate and that any action that it takes is evidence-based.
	My hon. Friend also asked about whether notice of inspection should be given. We are considering that issue throughout children's services, and I undertake to keep him informed.
	My hon. Friend asked whether Happen will be sorted out or deregistered. The annual announced inspection of Happen on 4 October has been brought forward from February 2005 as a result of the third stage review carried out by Ms Downey. The CSCI has advised me that the inspection on 4 October will be led by an inspector from Kent who has experience of inspecting independent fostering agencies. That inspector will be accompanied by an inspector from Oxford and the inspection will be overseen by a senior member of staff from outside the Oxford office, rather than the local regulation manager. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. The commission will inspect the service objectively and base its judgment on the evidence found. I assure my hon. Friend that I will inform him of the outcome of the inspection report and will ensure that I am informed of it.
	I should like to say a little about information sharing, which is at the heart of the original case. The national minimum standards, which have to be taken into account by the CSCI in inspecting fostering providers, make a number of references to the sharing of information. They state, for instance, that local authorities should ensure that each child or young person placed in foster care is carefully matched with a carer capable of meeting his or her needs. Full and effective information sharing is, of course, essential for that to happen. They also state that the fostering service must ensure that the foster carer knows why the child is in foster care and understands the basis of the placement. In any case, it is clear that appropriate information must be shared with those involved in the child's care. It is extremely unfortunate that that did not happen in my hon. Friend's constituency.
	Finally, I should like to put the case briefly in context. We must remember that there are 40,000 looked-after children in foster careabout two-thirds of the total number of children in care. Foster carers play a unique and critical role in our communities, providing homes for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in our society. Increasingly, they provide greater stability for looked-after children than do other forms of care.
	We know that there is a shortage of foster carersabout 8,000, according to the Fostering Network. It is clear that we need more foster carers to provide looked-after children with a greater choice of where they can live. Children are much more likely to thrive if they are placed with carers who are a good match in terms of location, culture, language and lifestyle; a bigger pool of carers would allow us to make better matches between carers and children. We are therefore committed to recruiting and keeping more foster carers and we want to encourage more people to consider fosteringnot just married couples, but other groups such as single people, older people, unmarried couples and lone parents who may not realise that they are eligible.
	I hope that Members will recognise from what I have said this evening that the Government have a strong commitment to improving outcomes for looked-after children. We are doing a lot of work to take it forward, but there is still a lot more work to be done. All looked-after children must be supported to achieve the same outcomes as all other children and their carers must be valued. We should expect for our looked-after children the same as we expect for our own children.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.